A question on iconography

[Rick of Wessex]

Mike,

This question is for you - although any imput is more than welcome.

A friend of miqe asked the that famous (or rather, infamous) icon of the Holy Trined in Western style, aka "Dad, Junior and the dove". (for those who don't have the slighest idea of what I'm talking about, click here.)

He mentioned that according to a few canons, including those of the Moscow Council of 1667, this kind of iconography - that is, any icon that depicts the Father in a human form - is considered uncanonical.

However, why this icon is still kept in some Russian churches, as you can see on the pictures below:

www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s03/f007.htm

and

www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s04/f004.htm

I remember that some Greek churches in the US also depicted this icon, but they are being replaced by canonical icons of the Trinity - such as the one painted by St. Andrew Rublev.

Rick

 

[Michael G]

Your friend is correct. There have been several councils which have condemned the "western style" Trinity icon, including the Council of Moscow. Patriarch Nikhon also went on to condemn all icons done in "a renaissance style" and state the people painting these images should stop immediately what they are doing and their paintings should be burned. Further, Christ stated "no one has seen the Father but me..." So not only are these icons non-canonical, in a way they are heretical because they attempt to depict something which is not able to be seen. Rublev knew this and that is why he depicted the Holy Trinity as the scene from the Hospitality of Abraham in Genesis. So why do the Russian Churches keep these paintings? That is a good question and one that I have been trying for years to get a solid answer to. No one seems to have a good answer to this. It is my understanding that the Russian Church is slowly working at replacing these horrible images with canonical icons of the Trinity. However it seems that the churches who have this icon in them (including the one I was Chrismated in) will only replace this icon when it is worn out and in need of a new icon. Further there are alot of older Orthodox who are attached to the oil painted icons in their churches and alot of those icons were donated by Tzar Nicholas so if we attempted to remove these icons from the churches the people concerned here might have them declared historical pieces. If that were done we might never be able to get rid of the things. (Notice I am not referring to them as icons because they are not icons.) This was the explanation given to me by a Hieromonk friend of mine in Pittsburgh. If I had the means I would personally love to replace every single one of these horrible pieces with canonical icons of the Trinity written by me.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Could money have anything to do with why they are not being replaced? I know that we just had four icons installed in our church this year, and it cost us over $8000. For a struggiling parish, that’s a lot of money.



I’m not saying that is the reason, but it could be a contributing factor.



PAX,



Maureen

 

[rafaeldaher]

Could money have anything to do with why they are not being replaced? I know that we just had four icons installed in our church this year, and it cost us over $8000. For a struggiling parish, that’s a lot of money.

Yes. And in some places, like Brazil, we have few iconographers.

 

[ElderCleopa]

Yes, but I think that, if the Icon is uncanonical (which it is by all accounts), it shouldn't be a question of being replaced so much as being done away with all together. If another icon (a canonical one) cannot be found immediately...well...better to leave the spot blank, I would think.

Just my two cents...

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Yes, but I think that, if the Icon is uncanonical (which it is by all accounts), it shouldn't be a question of being replaced so much as being done away with all together. If another icon (a canonical one) cannot be found immediately...well...better to leave the spot blank, I would think.

Just my two cents...

While this may not be the "correct" reasoning, it could be that the priests figure "Eh, it's been here this long, we can't afford to replace it, what harm is it doing?"

Now I am NOT saying that this is excusable, but that could be one reason.

I know of another church where the current priest is not anxious to replace an uncanonical icon that takes up 65% of their ceiling because it would outrage some of the founding members of the parish. Right or wrong, that is his reasoning.

~Maureen

 

[Michael G]

While this may not be the "correct" reasoning, it could be that the priests figure "Eh, it's been here this long, we can't afford to replace it, what harm is it doing?"

Now I am NOT saying that this is excusable, but that could be one reason.

I know of another church where the current priest is not anxious to replace an uncanonical icon that takes up 65% of their ceiling because it would outrage some of the founding members of the parish. Right or wrong, that is his reasoning.

~Maureen

Actually, money has alot to do with it. Being an iconographer, I know what I charge for icons, and I am on the lower end of the price scale. There are entire churches which are not painted save but the iconostasis and soley for monetary reasons. I know this because I and 3 other iconographers bid on a church 3 years ago and even though my bid was $25,000 less than the highest bid the parish council narrowly decided not to have the church painted. The parish council had more than enough money to afford even the highest bid, but they simply did not think the icons were worth the money. I am not saying all parishes are this way, but unfortunately things like this happen. I still agree with the Council of Moscow and Patriarch Nikon, all non-canonical icons should be destroyed.

 

[Maximus]

Mike,

However, why this icon is still kept in some Russian churches, as you can see on the pictures below:

www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s03/f007.htm

and

www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s04/f004.htm

I remember that some Greek churches in the US also depicted this icon, but they are being replaced by canonical icons of the Trinity - such as the one painted by St. Andrew Rublev.

Rick

I think the answer lies in popular piety, which frequently differs from the "canonical" kind.

Let's face it, many - perhaps most - of us think of God the Father as, well, a kindly old father with a long white beard.

Some of us realize we should strive not do that, but it is an image that springs readily to the human mind, and I am not so sure that it is entirely wrong, as long as one understands it for what it is.

It is kind of like the English word G-O-D, an image, a symbol. It's not the real thing, nor is the image of God the Father as the kindly old man with the white beard intended to be an accurate depiction of all that God is.

I agree that such icons should probably be replaced, but they spring from a pretty firm popular conception of the Father and have their source not in heresy but in devotion.

That's my impression anyway.

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall seeing that icon in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, a pretty prestigious Orthodox venue.

 

[Marjorie]

And also, as we (mostly) converts say on other things, the canons are not always absolute standards. We should remember that there are miracle-working icons of this kind. God can work through imperfect materials... just look at us!
But, yeah, of course, theologically, it's not great.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[choirfiend]

Making the distinction, of course, between these wrong depictions of the Trinity and the icon called 'the Ancient of Days' which can be found on the ceiling of the church at St. Tikhons. When I first saw it I didnt know what it was and I was shocked. Now I know!

 

[Michael G]

And also, as we (mostly) converts say on other things, the canons are not always absolute standards. We should remember that there are miracle-working icons of this kind. God can work through imperfect materials... just look at us!
But, yeah, of course, theologically, it's not great.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

There are miracle working icons of the Trinity painted in a western style? The two men and a bird style icons of the trinity are straight heretical because Christ himself proclaimed "no one has seen the Father but me." That which has not been seen can not be depicted, and that is why the Old Testament is so clear on forbidding the Israelites from making images of God. To do so (depict the undepictable) is idolatry. While the oil painted icons may be tolerable (although highly suspect), the "icons" of the Holy Trinity done in the "western"-two men and a dove-style are not only non-canonical, they are heretical, and thus not permissable at all.

 

[Maximus]

Rick -

I just realized the links to those pics you posted are from Christ the Savior in Moscow.

I knew they looked familiar! I've seen them there myself.

The depictions of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit startled me at the time, I remember.

While I think such things are not a good idea, I'm not sure I would go so far as to condemn them as "heretical."

I still think they are the product of popular piety.

If thinking of God as a kindly, white-bearded father makes one a heretic, then I'm afraid there are very few Orthodox in the world.

I wonder what kind of thing God wanted us to think when He used the word Father to describe Himself.

 

[Matrona]

If thinking of God as a kindly, white-bearded father makes one a heretic, then I'm afraid there are very few Orthodox in the world.

I wonder what kind of thing God wanted us to think when He used the word Father to describe Himself.

I agree, Maximus.

Who will call this icon 'heretical'?

 

[choirfiend]

Me! lol

Beauty doesnt negate bad theology. If iconography is theology in paint, then that's a very pretty, but very wrong, bit of theology.

 

[Maximus]

Me! lol

Beauty doesnt negate bad theology. If iconography is theology in paint, then that's a very pretty, but very wrong, bit of theology.

I don't think anyone was arguing about the intrinsic value of beauty.

It may be "wrong" to try to depict God the Father in art, but I am not sure it is "very wrong."

One of the reasons icons are permitted at all is because God has revealed much more about Himself to us, especially in the incarnation of His Divine Son, than He did in the Old Testament, where any and all depictions of God were forbidden.

Since God has much more fully revealed Himself to us as our Father, it is not unreasonable to conceive of Him in a fatherly guise.

Maybe - and I mean maybe - icons that depict God the Father as a kindly, white-bearded father are unwise, but it seems a bit of a stretch to declare them heretical or "bad theology."

Human beings think in images.

Is it better to conceive of God as vast, empty space, or as Father?

We will conceive of something when we think of Him, even if that something is nothing.

 

[Matrona]

Me! lol

Beauty doesnt negate bad theology. If iconography is theology in paint, then that's a very pretty, but very wrong, bit of theology.

That icon is the Reigning Mother of God. If that icon is 'bad theology'... I don't want to know 'good theology'.

 

[Maximus]

That icon is the Reigning Mother of God. If that icon is 'bad theology'... I don't want to know 'good theology'.

You should really consider allowing yourself to receive rep points.

It is gratifying to me to be able to feel that I can somehow reward worthy posts.

 

[Matrona]

You should really consider allowing yourself to receive rep points.

It is gratifying to me to be able to feel that I can somehow reward worthy posts.

I'll think about it... thank you for the compliment, though.

 

[choirfiend]

The icon type is fine. The depiction of God the Father goes against the Church's teaching. It's simply not acceptable, even though you may like it. That certainly doesn't make it right.

 

[Maximus]

The icon type is fine. The depiction of God the Father goes against the Church's teaching. It's simply not acceptable, even though you may like it. That certainly doesn't make it right.

No offense, but I don't think you're right.

Here is an article by a pretty conservative Orthodox author who doesn't seem to agree with you.