A question on iconography

[choirfiend]

Listen to the iconographer.

 

[Matrona]

I agree.

Yet we still have folks here confidently declaring that all icons that depict God the Father are heretical, be they miraculous or not and even if they adorn some of the most holy Orthodox cathedrals in all of Christendom.

Amazing.

I blame it on confrontational internet polemics. The Reigning Mother of God and the Kursk Root Icon are both celebrated wonderworking icons!

 

[choirfiend]

And they both have an inappropriate depiction of God the Father! They're still celebrated wonderworking icons. So it goes.

 

[Matrona]

And they both have an inappropriate depiction of God the Father! They're still celebrated wonderworking icons. So it goes.

Is it appropriate to argue for these icons being destroyed?

 

[choirfiend]

I didn't ask for them to be. That's not something I'm offering any opinion on, because it is an opinion. However, they are, factually, displaying that which is not allowed in iconography, which I have stated as simple fact.

 

[Khaleas]

I didn't ask for them to be. That's not something I'm offering any opinion on, because it is an opinion. However, they are, factually, displaying that which is not allowed in iconography, which I have stated as simple fact.

Yes, and we are all quite well aware of that...
However, until someone is ready to cough up the money for, in our case, a whole new iconostasis... we'll just have to live with it.

 

[Michael G]

I agree.

Yet we still have folks here confidently declaring that all icons that depict God the Father are heretical, be they miraculous or not and even if they adorn some of the most holy Orthodox cathedrals in all of Christendom.

Amazing.

Amazing. So basically what you are telling me is that no matter what scripture says, no matter what the councils or patriarchs have historically said, that popular piety rules? So if they have an icon in the most popular cathedrals which depicts Christ as a woman than that is ok? I mean Christ was not a woman, but then God the Father has never been seen. Both would be heretical and yet while one causes outrage the other doesn't seem to bother anyone. I suggest you study up on this matter a little and see what the Church has historically said about this subject. I understand that it is a practical matter of when these heterodox images can be replaced, but the matter still stands that any image of God the Father is heterodox because CHRIST HIMSELF SAID SO! If you don't know where I get that idea from, I suggest you read the gospels. I have studied iconography long enough to know that there are very good reasons the canons of iconography are in place.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I never said that Matrona's Bishop was himself a heretic

I never said you did. in fact my post read in its entirety implies the opposite. just wanted to make that clear.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I agree.

Yet we still have folks here confidently declaring that all icons that depict God the Father are heretical, be they miraculous or not and even if they adorn some of the most holy Orthodox cathedrals in all of Christendom.

Amazing.

You are easily amazed my friend. Must make life exciting.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Is it appropriate to argue for these icons being destroyed?

i don;'t think they should be destroyed regardless of where I aline myself in this argument. The tradition of the CHurch holds these icons in excellent esteem and to be heavenly gifts. I wouldn't want any icon that has been prayed before by Orthodox, even if holding techincally heretical images in them. I don't know... just seems highly sacrilege. The icon of the Trinity no longer accepted by the GOArch is not (as I understand it) ordered to be destroyed... just not reproduced. In the Greek Church near my home, they are replacing the icons, but the old icons (including the one of the Trinity) will face inward.

John

 

[Maximus]

Amazing. So basically what you are telling me is that no matter what scripture says, no matter what the councils or patriarchs have historically said, that popular piety rules?

I have not seen you produce any such evidence in any of your posts.

When have "the patriarchs . . . historically said" that icons such as the ones in question are heretical?

Rick (I believe) mentioned one local council (Moscow 1667) which is alleged to have produced a canon (not a doctrinal decree) forbidding such icons.

Yet Vladimir Moss, in the article to which I posted a link, gives good reasons why that council cannot be regarded as authoritative and why the canon it produced regarding icons of the Father runs counter to the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

So if they have an icon in the most popular cathedrals which depicts Christ as a woman than that is ok? I mean Christ was not a woman, but then God the Father has never been seen. Both would be heretical and yet while one causes outrage the other doesn't seem to bother anyone.

That argument is what is known classically as a red herring.

We are not discussing the depiction of Christ as a woman. It is not analogous to the depiction of God the Father symbolically as a father.

I suggest you study up on this matter a little and see what the Church has historically said about this subject.

Nice.

Why don't you help us out and actually produce some evidence that supports your position?

As confident as your assertions have been, such evidence must be ready to your hand.

I understand that it is a practical matter of when these heterodox images can be replaced, but the matter still stands that any image of God the Father is heterodox because CHRIST HIMSELF SAID SO! If you don't know where I get that idea from, I suggest you read the gospels. I have studied iconography long enough to know that there are very good reasons the canons of iconography are in place.

When did Christ say such icons are heterodox and heretical?

Merely saying that no man has seen the Father is not the equivalent.

Did you read the article at the link I posted?

Why is it that you are familiar with the mysterious "canons of iconography" that you claim forbid such icons, yet the Patriarch of Moscow, the Russian clergy, and the Russian iconographers all seem to be clueless?

I suspect that you are way off base on this subject.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Intersting thread. The link Maximus provided was also interesting. I would still like to look into it further. I mean, while there must be a reason that the MP is still allowing this despite the aforementioned canon that came from under his own roof (albeit from a different time) but at the same time, there must be something that the GOArch sees in forbidding such icons to be reproduced that the the Russian Clergy don't see. Could be nationalism... could be theological. ither way, the article made interesting points and that's as far as I can go at this moment.

Great thread,

John

 

[Khaleas]

Intersting thread. The link Maximus provided was also interesting. I would still like to look into it further. I mean, while there must be a reason that the MP is still allowing this despite the aforementioned canon that came from under his own roof (albeit from a different time) but at the same time, there must be something that the GOArch sees in forbidding such icons to be reproduced that the the Russian Clergy don't see. Could be nationalism... could be theological. ither way, the article made interesting points and that's as far as I can go at this moment.

Great thread,

John

I asked about it of our visiting priest this weekend. He said the original canon (he thinks it was a canon) was from the 800s. However, he didn't even realize the icon was there until I told him .

 

[Khaleas]

Heretical icon alert!!!
(oh and just so you all know, no one of you noticed this when I posted this picture the first time )

 

[Michael G]

Rick, I believe I have answered your question sufficiently. This is my last post in this thread. I do not care to debate iconographical canons with people who have no formal training in either iconography or Orthodox canon law. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss this with me any further, feel free to pm me.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

That's too bad Mike... because at this point it seems that that article Maximus linked made a lot of good points. I'm still holding judgement, but I was hoping you would share with us any good rebuttle's to that article that you're aware of. I guess I just don't understand why this can't be civily discussed. There is obviously a difference of opinion that exists within the Orthodox Church on this issue and I would love to hear the best of both sides. Pity.

John

 

[Khaleas]

let us remember that in the beginning God created man in his own image. So I guess we need to overlay each person on this earth to get the image of God...


Ok, that was my own philosophy...

 

[Michael G]

That's too bad Mike... because at this point it seems that that article Maximus linked made a lot of good points. I'm still holding judgement, but I was hoping you would share with us any good rebuttle's to that article that you're aware of. I guess I just don't understand why this can't be civily discussed. There is obviously a difference of opinion that exists within the Orthodox Church on this issue and I would love to hear the best of both sides. Pity.

John

From here on out I ask that any commentary on me which is done, be done via private message. I am finding TAW to be entirely too hostile recently for my own tastes. The question was asked to me by the OP and I answered him. I know I am sounding like a liberal, but I doubt any of us would get nearly as agressive as we sometimes get with each other if we were face to face. I really am convinced charity needs to be the law arround here, and often I see it lacking.

 

[Michael G]

Jennie,
I wish the darn rep system would let me rep you again so soon!

 

[Maximus]

That's too bad Mike... because at this point it seems that that article Maximus linked made a lot of good points. I'm still holding judgement, but I was hoping you would share with us any good rebuttle's to that article that you're aware of. I guess I just don't understand why this can't be civily discussed. There is obviously a difference of opinion that exists within the Orthodox Church on this issue and I would love to hear the best of both sides. Pity.

John

You're right, John.

I thought we were having a civil discussion.

My impression is that the assertions that the icons in question are heretical were without foundation, since no substantial evidence that they are has been put forward.

Violation of one canon of one rather questionable local council cannot render something heretical. It cannot even render it "uncanonical" except in relation to that single local council.