Strange icons

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał Kalina said:
88Devin12 said:
You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome. ;)
I've read somewhere there is a difference between icons and icon-like paintings on other objcects like wall or vestments.

I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong,
It was created for that purpose.

should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards?
I'd love that happen.

Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons?
We are not discussing here materials used for icons but icons being used for non-veneration actions, are we?
Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?
What they do?
Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign? Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.

It's all the same debate, what are icons and what purpose are they for.

The Old Believers take icon "veneration" to near worship and fall into pharisaism an legalism with regard to icons and other aspects of the faith.

I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
myrrhbear said:
biro said:
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.




This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.




This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....




'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male.  :-\




'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus.  ???




There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.
I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.
Just because an image, a feast, or anything else has some sort of deeper meaning derived from Scripture or anywhere else does not make it acceptable or traditional.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
LBK said:
Dominika said:
This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  :mad: :mad: :mad:
Are there Orthodox icons of the Visitation? That is, before the feast was added to the Western calendar? IIRC, it was a late addition and never made it on the Eastern calendar, except for the Eastern Catholics.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
88Devin12 said:
Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign?
LBK said:
Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns.
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.
Political demonstrations are not "a holy purpose".

I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.
Uspyenski wrote about that.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg
And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition. :police:
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.
This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
88Devin12 said:
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg
And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition. :police:
I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.

If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.

I could imagine if we were discussing iconography 1800 years ago (with the mindset about icons of some living today) we'd be arguing whether or not the addition of a halo above Christs head was okay, or whether the depiction of Christ with long hair and a beard is okay, or whether the Emperor should be in an image with Christ. It didn't exist in Christian depictions of them before, so it shouldn't be done "now".

That kind of attitude is just silly, our iconographers aren't Amish-like, they are allowed to paint new things (within reason obviously).

Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.

The prime function of icons isn't just for veneration or as windows to heaven, it is also to teach and show forth the Orthodox faith. Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool. We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.
This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".
And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.

Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?

You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
88Devin12 said:
NicholasMyra said:
It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.
What do you mean by this?
I mean that it looks like it caught figures in a moment of time, carrying some sort of nervous motion into the picture.

An icon, by contrast, is meant to re-capitulate the whole of the event or person depicted, not merely a snapshot of a particular second in time.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.
On the contrary:






Note the Chinese architecture in the icon of the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion and in the life icon of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. Note also in St John's icon the Capitol building in Washington DC, and a street with cars, representing the Paris street where St John once served a panikhida in memory of an Serbian archhduke who had been assassinated there, an act representative of his foolishness for Christ. The Capitol represents St John's traveling to Washington to petition the American government to allow his flock, stranded on Tubabao in the Philippines after escaping Shanghai in 1949, to emigrate to the US. All are perfectly proper elements in their respective icons.

If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.
See above.

The Holy Trinity icon that St Andrei of Radonezh (Andrei Rublyev) painted was based on the already ancient icon composition of the Hospitality of Abraham. St Andrei's icon is a distillation of the theology of the events at the Oak of Mamre. It is as profound an expression of Trinitarian theology as any theological treatise, and it is all there, in a single painted panel.

Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.
The meaning behind proper icons of the Visitation is the recognition of both St Elizabeth and the unborn Forerunner of the unborn Child of the Virgin as their Lord and their God, something proclaimed, and frequently so, in scripture and in hymnography, the latter which truly expresses the Orthodox consensus patrum.

Moreover, there is only a single historical (12thC) icon of the Annunciation which shoes the unborn Christ, and, even then, the Child is shown over his Mother's body not enclosed in the womb, but in a manner similar to Of the Sign icons, minus the mandorla of Uncreated Light. Again, hymnographers in every Orthodox culture, some of them saints, have consistently omitted any depiction of an unborn Christ.

Attempting to associate this imagery with anti-abortion campaigns has no scriptural or liturgical basis. Icons are not political playthings.

Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool.
Not quite. The first icon was the Mandylion (Not Made By Hands), and its purpose was to mediate the miraculous healing of King Abgar. Christ could not travel to Edessa to personally heal the king, so He sent the image of His face imprinted on cloth in His stead. The holiness of an icon is derived from its association with the prototype.This is the first and foremost iconographic principle which not only permits their painting and veneration, but also insists on their veneration. All else flows from this.

This action also proclaims the Incarnation, that fallen matter has been redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection.

We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.
No, we cannot. This image, painted by Christine Uveges (who is not even Orthodox) and others like her, was created as a vehicle for the promotion of pro-life causes. This cannot be denied. And, in doing so, this image ceases to be an icon, and becomes a sociopolitical tool, a mascot for the cause.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.
You may wish to reacquaint yourself with this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44810.0/all.html

Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?
For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14)

You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.
While God Himself will ultimately judge their souls, the Church, through her sainted bishops, including St Nicholas of Myra, has decreed that both were heretics deserving of anathema. Good enough for me.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK, you don't really offer any real rational arguments here. Instead of trying to base your argument on rejection of these icons based on YOUR expectations of what an icon is, maybe you ought to step back and look at it historically.

Firstly, the story about the image of Christ being sent to King Abgar is indeed as you say, but you are forgetting about the history of this story. The story itself, of the king sending an emissary to Christ dates back to the Fourth Century. However, in all the accounts that record his interaction with Christ, no image is mentioned until the 5th Century when it wasn't a miraculous image but a painting by a court artist. The story that Christ himself made the image didn't come about until about the 7th Century. So there may have been an image, but it probably wasn't made by Christ himself.

Also, then you may point to St Luke (my patron), but again, while a nice tradition that can teach us something, it is somewhat unlikely. He probably could not have painted an image of Mary and Christ when he was a child. This just doesn't add up, especially since he lived pretty far away when Christ was young. Also, the icon(s) that were reported to be this image are all far too recent, and they could be argued to be as copies, but not stylistically since the style we see today really didn't arise until the era between 1100 and 1400.

I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events. It's a known historical fact that our idea of the "Icon" and its veneration didn't arise until the mid hundreds. The first images weren't venerated as those of today or treated in the same manner, though they are still considered iconography. They form the very basis of what icons have become. Yet to absolutely ignore the facts and refuse to see how much it has changed and evolved over time and insist on static uniformity and absolute legalistic conformity is to completely ignore the real history of it.

And why is the Byzantine style so prominent? The same reasons the liturgy of St John is. Because of the Byzantine synthesis and the power and influence the Greeks had over the whole Eastern Orthodox Church from Chalcedonian Alexandria to Russia. It's a wonderful tradition but it is not the only one and is not the only way.

Also, our iconography has evolved and changed profoundly over the centuries, just like our Liturgy, and to ignore this is to willingly be in ignorance about ones own Church and to do a great disservice to those who paint icons and work within that tradition.

As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
88Devin12 said:
I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events.
I see some Protestant theories here.
y
As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.
OK, He must. Does that mean is it necessary to put Him on political banners? Don't think so.
 

Jules_Grant

Newbie
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
20
Location
South Orange, New Jersey, United States


Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jules_Grant said:


Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.
This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Orthodox11 said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.


You can buy it here
I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
sheenj said:
Orthodox11 said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.


You can buy it here
I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?
I think that is a later tradition as St Ignatius probably wasn't born until after Christ's resurrection. It's a pious belief and tradition that one can hold to, but I don't think it's by any means official, like the story about St Dismas and Christs family.
 

Jules_Grant

Newbie
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
20
Location
South Orange, New Jersey, United States
88Devin12 said:
This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.
Haha, I just realised. I missed the difference.
 
Top