Western Rite Orthodoxy

AMM · Jan 18, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
Making sure that there's consistency in iconography.

Where do we draw that line? How much consistency, what needs to be consistent, etc.?

TheLostCoin · Jan 18, 2019

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
Oh yeah I noticed that too. I think I read in the comments somewhere that it wasn't their church. I think that they were actually using a Roman Catholic Church. Someone in the comments section mentioned that also.

I know for a fact that the first video isn't using their own Church (hence the Sacred Heart statue in the background and the weird paintings), but I think that the second video is their own Church.

TheLostCoin · Jan 18, 2019

AMM said:
Where do we draw that line? How much consistency, what needs to be consistent, etc.?

Just enough to show that we're actually Ethnic Greeks with a Byzantine heritage, and enough to perpetuate the myth that the Apostles practiced the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom word for word with an iconostasis.

TheLostCoin · Jan 18, 2019

In all seriousness, while no icon is perfect (except for Christ Himself),

in my humble opinion, if you are aware of a common mistake in an icon, you should try to avoid that mistake, unless it's out of your control.

Just doing your best.

I don't think though that Triclavianism means it's a schlock icon or anything - I think that there can be perfectly legitimate icons with three nails. I've seen them, even in Byzantium.

But because I love obscure trivia, if I was tasked of designing a Western-Rite Church, it would be a small factor in the Crucifixes I choose, the icons I want, etc., just because I'm aware of it.

God was pleased with Abel's Sacrifice, because he did his best when giving the firstlings of his flock to God.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

There are Icons of the entire trinity all over Mt Athos. The ban on depicting the Father was strictly a countermeasure during the Iconoclasm-

Since then there have been multiple Icons seen in visions that depict the trinity.

Ever hear of the Port Arthur Icon?

The Icon was seen in a vision of the blessed Virgin, look it up if you want the whole story.

My point about having the feet crossed is that Western Rite is not aggressive enough about eliminating Latin heresy. Most of their members come from Catholic backgrounds and in my opinion should be more welcoming of the rite that actually kept the faith rather then a dead rite plagued by heretical influences. Statues were banned at the 7th council if I'm not mistaken.

You can't really compare this to the representation of the Trinity, which is based off of the ages of ages description in Isaiah. Not only that but this is still a controversial ORTHODOX practice at least. If we start bringing Latin controversies into our Church we are only going to create more confusion.

All4Christ · Jan 18, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
Making sure that there's consistency in iconography.

I mean, I think it's quite a minor mistake in iconographic consistency (I mean really really minor), but still...

I can see it being important to follow iconographic tradition even in the small things, but in the realm of discussion about a church, it seems to be of minimal importance.

My first cross icon actually is not “correct” according to the iconographic tradition. It has God the Father depicted at the top. It’s still an Orthodox holy icon despite the inconsistency (which actually goes onto theological territory).

All4Christ · Jan 18, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
There are Icons of the entire trinity all over Mt Athos. The ban on depicting the Father was strictly a countermeasure during the Iconoclasm-

Since then there have been multiple Icons seen in visions that depict the trinity.

Ever hear of the Port Arthur Icon?

The Icon was seen in a vision of the blessed Virgin, look it up if you want the whole story.

My point about having the feet crossed is that Western Rite is not aggressive enough about eliminating Latin heresy. Most of their members come from Catholic backgrounds and in my opinion should be more welcoming of the rite that actually kept the faith rather then a dead rite plagued by heretical influences. Statues were banned at the 7th council if I'm not mistaken.

You can't really compare this to the representation of the Trinity, which is based off of the ages of ages description in Isaiah. Not only that but this is still a controversial ORTHODOX practice at least. If we start bringing Latin controversies into our Church we are only going to create more confusion.

Depicting God the Father is not an accepted practice even if some Orthodox icons do. It violates the theology of why we can have icons. That prohibition was confirmed in the 16th century in a local council of Moscow.

TheLostCoin · Jan 18, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
There are Icons of the entire trinity all over Mt Athos. The ban on depicting the Father was strictly a countermeasure during the Iconoclasm-

Since then there have been multiple Icons seen in visions that depict the trinity.

Ever hear of the Port Arthur Icon?

The Icon was seen in a vision of the blessed Virgin, look it up if you want the whole story.

My point about having the feet crossed is that Western Rite is not aggressive enough about eliminating Latin heresy. Most of their members come from Catholic backgrounds and in my opinion should be more welcoming of the rite that actually kept the faith rather then a dead rite plagued by heretical influences. Statues were banned at the 7th council if I'm not mistaken.

You can't really compare this to the representation of the Trinity, which is based off of the ages of ages description in Isaiah. Not only that but this is still a controversial ORTHODOX practice at least. If we start bringing Latin controversies into our Church we are only going to create more confusion.

Lol
As if that icon doesn’t have Latin influence

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
Lol
As if that icon doesn’t have Latin influence

There are byzantine style versions of it as well.

Are you against soft style? Because soft style Icons are much older than Peter the Great, and just as inspired. We are talking theology here.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

All4Christ said:
Depicting God the Father is not an accepted practice even if some Orthodox icons do. It violates the theology of why we can have icons. That prohibition was confirmed in the 16th century in a local council of Moscow.

Most depictions of the "trinity" use the ages of ages (you can spot this by an 8 sided star behind head) Method.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

There is also Lord of Sabaoth, I'm not sure but that might be the one with the 8 sided star.

All4Christ · Jan 18, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
Most depictions of the "trinity" use the ages of ages (you can spot this by an 8 sided star behind head) Method.

I recommend checking out the council of Moscow in the 1600s. It references this.

According to the hymnography of the Church, the Ancient of Days is referencing Jesus, not the Father.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

"Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

All4Christ said:
I recommend checking out the council of Moscow in the 1600s. It references this.

According to the hymnography of the Church, the Ancient of Days is referencing Jesus, not the Father.

This is the claim, but lets be honest when it is presented with the Holy Spirit we all know who the figure is meant to be, metaphorical presentation or no.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

There are in fact several wonder working "non- canonical" Icons

See
Non-Canonical Wonderworking Icons

We must also look at things historically. Look at the Old Believers. Everything they did that was considered non-canonical is now canonical. They are brought into the Church and renamed the Old Rite, yet they didn't have to change any practices despite the canons.

All4Christ · Jan 18, 2019

Ok, this is St Basil’s so I shouldn’t be debating this. We all can’t debate here. That said, if anyone wants to start a thread to discuss the iconographic tradition of icons depicting the Father, I’d be happy to point out the reasons why it is not acceptable from an Orthodox POV.

☦Marius☦ · Jan 18, 2019

All4Christ said:
Ok, this is St Basil’s so I shouldn’t be debating this. We all can’t debate here. That said, if anyone wants to discuss the iconographic tradition of icons depicting the Father, I’d be happy to point out the reasons why it is not acceptable from an Orthodox POV.

Fair enough. We were off topic anyway. Doubt either of us will budge from our point either

To be fair I made the same claims as you to the Abbot at Hermitage of the Holy Cross where the copy of the Port Arthur Icon is kept. He claimed in the Original it was the ancient of days and that the person who finished the copy changed it.

He said however that many Saints have risen venerating various potentially non canonical Icons. I guess the point being that what saves a person matters more than the style of Icon they had.

Monasticism can make you more zealous in some ways and less in others I reckon. My five months there changed the balance of the things I cared about.

AMM · Jan 19, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
My point about having the feet crossed is that Western Rite is not aggressive enough about eliminating Latin heresy. Most of their members come from Catholic backgrounds and in my opinion should be more welcoming of the rite that actually kept the faith rather then a dead rite plagued by heretical influences. Statues were banned at the 7th council if I'm not mistaken.

How is crossed feet a Latin heresy? If I'm missing something obvious, please tell me. I just don't understand how it can be heretical.

There were monasteries on Athos that kept the western rite through the 1200s without falling in to heresy. So saying that "the rite that actually kept the faith" is only the Liturgies of St John + St Basil is idolizing specific cultural expressions of the faith. The use of Latin and a liturgy written by Sts Peter and Gregory is hardly "a dead rite plagued by heretical influences"

And statues weren't banned at Nicea II, they just weren't a part of Byzantine culture so they fell out of practice

☦Marius☦ said:
"Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

I've always seen this used for the opposite argument. We don't depict the Father directly, because we can depict Christ, and in doing so, we depict the Father through Christ.
Christ is the Icon of the Father. An old bearded guy in the sky? Well...

All4Christ · Jan 19, 2019

AMM said:
How is crossed feet a Latin heresy? If I'm missing something obvious, please tell me. I just don't understand how it can be heretical.

There were monasteries on Athos that kept the western rite through the 1200s without falling in to heresy. So saying that "the rite that actually kept the faith" is only the Liturgies of St John + St Basil is idolizing specific cultural expressions of the faith. The use of Latin and a liturgy written by Sts Peter and Gregory is hardly "a dead rite plagued by heretical influences"

And statues weren't banned at Nicea II, they just weren't a part of Byzantine culture so they fell out of practice

I've always seen this used for the opposite argument. We don't depict the Father directly, because we can depict Christ, and in doing so, we depict the Father through Christ.
Christ is the Icon of the Father. An old bearded guy in the sky? Well...

I think this would actually be a good thread (probably in the main forum or even St Justin's) to discuss some of this and to compare and contrast what is or is not acceptable in Orthodox practice. That said - I'm not the authoritative source; I can only pull information from Church writings / history from the past, the councils, etc.

(FTR, I agree.)

TheLostCoin · Jan 19, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
My point about having the feet crossed is that Western Rite is not aggressive enough about eliminating Latin heresy. Most of their members come from Catholic backgrounds and in my opinion should be more welcoming of the rite that actually kept the faith rather then a dead rite plagued by heretical influences. Statues were banned at the 7th council if I'm not mistaken.

I've heard this repeated over and over again, but I don't think that makes it true. Can you cite your source that this is true?

You ought to see my thread where I critique this very cliche. While I personally regret some of the posts I made in the past (for some reason I was struggling with Orthodoxy and had doubts about it), I don't regret this one, because there's so much evidence and examples that the Church has allowed the usage of statues - both East and West.

OrthoCliches #2: Statues are not icons

Western Rite Orthodoxy

A Beggar

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

Murican

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

A Lonesome Coin

Murican

Murican

Murican

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Murican

Murican

Murican

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Murican

A Beggar

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

A Lonesome Coin

Similar threads