Recent communication between EO and OO?

[dzheremi]

I see. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the theology of Palamas to comment, Father. Sorry.

Again, I just meant to underline that HH has been wrong about things, and this is one of those things that even Copts like Fr. Athanasius Iskander have pointed out. This doesn't really say anything about Palamas, though, as most Copts (and me) don't really know him. He's too late.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, no, no. I'm sorry. I didn't mean anything like that. My point was more that insofar as you can find something objectionable in HH Pope Shenouda III's writings, so can we, the difference being that some of us are not willing to admit it. Perhaps it is because HH was recently declared a saint, to which I would say so was St. Justin Martyr in the pre-congregation times, but that doesn't make his seeming acceptance of creation out of preexisting matter somehow magically be "the Orthodox position" or whatever you'd call it. That's simply not how things work.

When I wrote about the man in the chair, I was talking about the deference that some Copts pay to the Coptic Pope that seems to be de facto akin to the same syndrome in the Latins, in terms of its rabidness and its lack of critical thought (even though the Copts wouldn't realize it or necessarily talk about it in those same terms). No doubt this is especially heavy and sensitive when it comes to HH Pope Shenouda III, because he has recently departed within everyone's memory, and for many who are of a certain age he is the only Pope that they really remember (HH Cyril VI having passed in 1971). That ought not change our ecclesiological principles, however, which are traditional in the Orthodox, conciliar sense. One of the very first things that HH Pope Tawadros II did after being elevated was decree his intention to root out precisely this tendency, and so he declared "We are a conciliar Church", and set about working to try to fix some of the things that HH Pope Shenouda III's very long papacy had set in place and/or left ossified that needed to be dealt with, like finally getting some darn bishops for the ecclesiological badlands that we call Canada.

The OO Church does not have, and has never had, and never will have, one chair. Our ecclesiology does not allow such a thing. Etchmiadzin of the Armenians, Axum of the Ethiopians, and wherever it is that the Syriacs have been chased to thanks to the war/Islamist takeover of Syria (Beirut, I think) all function just fine. We are actually less tightly held-together in that way than you guys are, as we lack an equivalent of the EP. Some will argue (of these particular churches...totally coincidentally, I'm sure ) that the Patriarch of Alexandria or of the Syriac Orthodox should have this role, but that doesn't make it a thing. Hence, just for instance, we mention by name the Patriarch of Antioch (one of the oldest churches of the communion) and the Patriarch of Eritrea (one of the newest, in terms of their 1990s autocephaly) in every Coptic liturgy, because this is following an agreement that we have with these churches in particular. It does not say anything regarding who would or should be ranked where. We don't really do that.

Thank you for explaining further. I'm glad to know your communion is still councilliar.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I see. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the theology of Palamas to comment, Father. Sorry.

Again, I just meant to underline that HH has been wrong about things, and this is one of those things that even Copts like Fr. Athanasius Iskander have pointed out. This doesn't really say anything about Palamas, though, as most Copts (and me) don't really know him. He's too late.

yeah, I know. a Coptic deacon used that point wisely when trying to tell Fr John Behr neither side should rush to reunion, as we both have had theologians of our own history long after the split.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Coptic icons by and large just look odd. Super simplistic, out of proportion with huge heads and little bodies, very unusual style. I wonder why the difference? I've always wondered.

 

[dzheremi]

Just different ways of expressing things, I suppose.

If you compare your standard EO icon, with its elongated fingers and enlarged eyes and such, with a traditional Coptic icon like the Christ Pantocrator icon from the monastery of St. Anthony (12th century), you'll find all those same motifs (elongated fingers, enlarged eyes), but in an overall setting that is perhaps a bit softer than the EO style -- the color pallet is more red/brown than gold/yellow, and there's an emphasis on roundness, as in the faces of the cherubim and the moon. (I tried to insert the actual icon earlier and just got a red X, but it's here if you want to see it).

As to how things got that way...that's more difficult. We know from things like the Fayyum mummy portraits (which were still being produced into the second century AD) that the Egyptians could make more realistic art, so I can only guess that just as in the EO case, the development of Coptic iconography represented a deliberate move away from realism.

None of the books I have on Coptic art seem to address this, unfortunately, as they're all written from an art historian's perspective, not a comparative religion perspective or whatever you'd call it. I am fairly certain that the available icons and wood reliefs that we have from the 5th and 6th centuries (some of which you can see at Wikipedia) show that already by that time Coptic iconography was quite well established in the form that it would have for centuries (I would say "until today", but in truth we've been iconographically Byzantinized to a large degree, at least in the diaspora, so you don't really see icons like that Christ Pantocrator anymore, or very, very rarely), so I don't think it's possible that this would have spontaneously arisen after Chalcedon...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Coptic icons by and large just look odd. Super simplistic, out of proportion with huge heads and little bodies, very unusual style. I wonder why the difference? I've always wondered.

I always liked the Coptic style. Georgians have a unique style as well, with the icons almost looking stretched longways. the Carpathos/Ukrainians also can have a more Western style too, due to Latin influence. I like them all.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't like Western style icons at all. The coptic, imho, are the absolute worst. My wife thinks they creep her out. I'm a Byzantine style fan....oh, and painted!

I always liked the Coptic style. Georgians have a unique style as well, with the icons almost looking stretched longways. the Carpathos/Ukrainians also can have a more Western style too, due to Latin influence. I like them all.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't like Western style icons at all. The coptic, imho, are the absolute worst. My wife thinks they creep her out. I'm a Byzantine style fan....oh, and painted!

to each their own. my line with Western style is when they start getting dynamic, and they loose their serenity (i.e. Christ in agony on the Cross).

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Yes, it's hard to get more beautiful than the Sitka Icon of the Theotokos & Child, and it's western.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2017/07/08/101965-icon-of-the-mother-of-god-our-lady-of-sitka

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not a fan of that style. But like Father Matt said, there is a style for everyone.

Yes, it's hard to get more beautiful than the Sitka Icon of the Theotokos & Child, and it's western.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2017/07/08/101965-icon-of-the-mother-of-god-our-lady-of-sitka

 

[Barney2.0]

It’s very ridiculous that the Oriental Churches are still seperate from the Eastern Orthodox Church, it’s about time for a reunion. I always loved Coptic Iconography, it’s very simple yet very lovely.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can’t stand the misshapen and creepy iconography, but the reunion?—-HECK YEAH!

It’s very ridiculous that the Oriental Churches are still seperate from the Eastern Orthodox Church, it’s about time for a reunion. I always loved Coptic Iconography, it’s very simple yet very lovely.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I can’t stand the misshapen and creepy iconography, but the reunion?—-HECK YEAH!

buuuuuuut Byzantine iconography is intentionally misshapen, you silly-silly

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not like in the Coptic. The Coptic has a fun house mirror quality.

buuuuuuut Byzantine iconography is intentionally misshapen, you silly-silly

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not like in the Coptic. The Coptic has a fun house mirror quality.

well, icons are for prayer, so if they distract you, it's smart you don't go for them

 

[~Anastasia~]

To be honest there are some icons I like (and usually some I dislike) of each style. The Byzantine are most familiar to me so I prefer them. I do like quite of few of the Coptic ones that I didn't even separate out in my mind as Coptic - I suppose mostly the older ones it seems? There are a few western styled ones I like, but many of them go way over the line for me. They'd make nice portraits, but they don't or can't function as icons for me. Too realistic.

I'm curious about something? One of the examples that really struck me was GxG's signature. This icon:

That style strikes me as very different. I immediately notice the shapes of the eyes in such an icon (especially one like this with so many faces). And they often seem very vibrant in color to me. I guess I am used to them in that I like them now, but more as a stylized artistic depiction rather than being inspired by them as an icon normally does.

I'm just curious - can you tell me where this style fits into the "family tree" of iconography? And would you say this type is characterized by the almond-shaped eyes and bright colors, or did I just happen to see a few like that?

 

[ArmyMatt]

To be honest there are some icons I like (and usually some I dislike) of each style. The Byzantine are most familiar to me so I prefer them. I do like quite of few of the Coptic ones that I didn't even separate out in my mind as Coptic - I suppose mostly the older ones it seems? There are a few western styled ones I like, but many of them go way over the line for me. They'd make nice portraits, but they don't or can't function as icons for me. Too realistic.

I'm curious about something? One of the examples that really struck me was GxG's signature. This icon:

View attachment 234811

That style strikes me as very different. I immediately notice the shapes of the eyes in such an icon (especially one like this with so many faces). And they often seem very vibrant in color to me. I guess I am used to them in that I like them now, but more as a stylized artistic depiction rather than being inspired by them as an icon normally does.

I'm just curious - can you tell me where this style fits into the "family tree" of iconography? And would you say this type is characterized by the almond-shaped eyes and bright colors, or did I just happen to see a few like that?

I think that's Malakar Indian Iconography.

 

[dzheremi]

That's Ethiopian/Eritrean Tewahedo, not Malankara Orthodox. Malankara Orthodox is basically a subtype of Syriac Orthodox, though they certainly feature iconography like that, assuming they follow the Syriac way and do not Byzantize or Latinize their art (which, again, is rare for OO, at least in the diaspora). Examples like that of the noticeably rounded eye shape are found throughout the OO churches.

 

[dzheremi]

Examples:

Armenian Pentecost, from illustrated manuscript (c. 14th century?)

Syriac Orthodox last supper, 12th century

Same, but from the Armenians, 14th century

"Deposition of Christ from the Cross", Faras Cathedral (Nubia), 10th century

A more modern interpretation of the Syriac Orthodox last supper scene by Nasra Şimmes Hindi (1924-2016), woven on cloth as the Syriacs do in Tur Abdin. You can find cloths like this hanging up in some areas of the nearby Deir ul-Zafaran monastery (est. 397 AD).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I sit corrected, thanks!