Awesome Icon of The Visitation

[cobweb]

I found this over at

Adventures of an Orthodox Mom: Icons of Panagia

and I had to share. I would love to get my hands on a copy of this.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b103/cobweb2/thevisitationicon.jpg

 

[Michael G]

That is not an Orthodox icon. Sorry. There are plenty of icons of the Visitation but none of the canonical ones show the unborn Children in their mothers wombs. That they are there is implied, but never actually shown. I understand the thinking of the person who painted it, that he wanted to speak up about pro-life issues, but as I have said time and again icons are not socio-political tools.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

That is not an Orthodox icon. Sorry. There are plenty of icons of the Visitation but none of the canonical ones show the unborn Children in their mothers wombs. That they are there is implied, but never actually shown. I understand the thinking of the person who painted it, that he wanted to speak up about pro-life issues, but as I have said time and again icons are not socio-political tools.

What's wrong with it though? The Platytera shows Christ in the Theotokos' womb.

 

[Michael G]

What's wrong with it though? The Platytera shows Christ in the Theotokos' womb.

The Platytera and the Icon of the Theotokos of the Sign both show Christ in the Theotokos' womb, but he is fully clothed. You are only partially right here. The Visitation Icon has never canonically shown Christ in the womb. Iconographers are charged with passing on from one generation to the next iconography. Iconographers are not free to make changes to icons based on their own imagination, fantasy and thinking. We are not the authors of the icons, God is. Yes there are minor elements of icons that iconographers may adjust, but to make such a major change to the icon as this person has is an act of disobedience to the Church.

 

[Michael G]

I will say more on the subject later, when I am done working in my yard. But there are supposed to be thunderstorms late this afternoon and I have to finish planting the flower garden that I am building for my wife.

 

[Michael G]

BTW, that one is on the cover of WORD magazine May 2009. Any Antiochian Orthodox that you know who gets WORD should be able to give you their copy of the magazine.

 

[Damaris]

I found this over at

Adventures of an Orthodox Mom: Icons of Panagia

and I had to share. I would love to get my hands on a copy of this.

I remember that icon - they gave out paper copies at the March for Life in DC this past year. I didn't get my hands on a copy myself, but if I find a copy, or find out by whose hand it was painted, I will let you know. It's a magnificently beautiful icon. Thank you for posting it.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I don't understand, if the Antiochian's "ok'd" it, shouldn't it be okay? I mean, I don't see anything theologically wrong with the icon.

 

[Michael G]

I don't understand, if the Antiochian's "ok'd" it, shouldn't it be okay? I mean, I don't see anything theologically wrong with the icon.

Theologically icons depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one. Thus changing the icon to depict the physical reality of the event is outside the practice of iconography. To change a major element of an icon is akin to changing the teaching of the Church on a matter. Finally, the editor of WORD magazine is a priest, not a bishop. Just because one priest says something is ok, that does not mean it is a correct teaching of the Church.

 

[ikonographics]

I know I will be burnt at the stake for what I'm going to say, but speaking as a theologian and iconographer (I'm doing my doctorate on icons), I have to disagree and say that there is nothing theologically wrong with this icon. It depicts the historical reality of the Gospel story. That according to the Fathers and the councils is the purpose of the icon.
Nowhere, do the Fathers or the Councils teach that the icons are meant to portray some kind of "spiritual reality". The idea that icons are supposed to be "spiritual" and portray the "holiness" of the person depicted is found nowhere in the teachings of the Fathers, but appeared in the 20th century by Russian theologians living in the West who were trying to make icons acceptable in West which had rejected Byzantine iconography as primitive. The Fathers are completely realistic. The icon is to deptict the person/ hypostasis, not the essence/holiness/theosis and all the other interpretations that have been imposed in the icon in the 20th century. The icon is meant to deptict historical reality. To say that an icon of the crucifixion only deptics "spiritual reality" is docetism. It means that Christ was not crucified in reality but only spiritually. To say that the icon depicts "spiritual reality" not physical reality" is not Orthodox.

All that aside, it is also based on a model that most certainly wasn't influenced by any political campaign:

Besides, there are icons of the Annunciation that depict Christ superimposed on Panagia's womb:

 

[Greg the byzantine]

I know I will be burnt at the stake for what I'm going to say, but speaking as a theologian and iconographer (I'm doing my doctorate on icons), I have to disagree and say that there is nothing theologically wrong with this icon. It depicts the historical reality of the Gospel story. That according to the Fathers and the councils is the purpose of the icon.
Nowhere, do the Fathers or the Councils teach that the icons are meant to portray some kind of "spiritual reality". The idea that icons are supposed to be "spiritual" and portray the "holiness" of the person depicted is found nowhere in the teachings of the Fathers, but appeared in the 20th century by Russian theologians living in the West who were trying to make icons acceptable in West which had rejected Byzantine iconography as primitive. The Fathers are completely realistic. The icon is to deptict the person/ hypostasis, not the essence/holiness/theosis and all the other interpretations that have been imposed in the icon in the 20th century. The icon is meant to deptict historical reality. To say that an icon of the crucifixion only deptics "spiritual reality" is docetism. It means that Christ was not crucified in reality but only spiritually. To say that the icon depicts "spiritual reality" not physical reality" is not Orthodox.

All that aside, it is also based on a model that most certainly wasn't influenced by any political campaign:

Besides, there are icons of the Annunciation that depict Christ superimposed on Panagia's womb:

Thank You Julia Is that Icon from the church of Asinou? It looks Cypriot in origin

 

[ArmyMatt]

I remember that icon - they gave out paper copies at the March for Life in DC this past year

yeah I was there and got one of them too. the big icon that we all march behind also has Christ and the Forerunner in the womb.

 

[ikonographics]

Thank You Julia Is that Icon from the church of Asinou? It looks Cypriot in origin

It's a 14th century icon from the Holy Cross Church in Pelendri, Cyprus.

The other icon that didn't appear is this one:

 

[-Kyriaki-]

It's a nice icon, but I like the one it's based on more Something about the colours, and the faces, and the "oldness".

 

[Greg the byzantine]

Thank You Julia Is that Icon from the church of Asinou? It looks Cypriot in origin

I was close

 

[Michael G]

Julia, you can't be serious saying that the Orthodox view of icons representing things in their spiritual state that has been transformed through Theosis and not in their physical state is docetism?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Docetae

Docetae
tt=94

(Greek Doketai.)

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death. The word Docetae which is best rendered by "Illusionists", first occurs in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had arisen about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion at first unsuspectingly allowed but soon after forbade, this, saying that he had borrowed a copy from the sect who used it, "whom we call Docetae". He suspected a connection with Marcionism and found in this Gospel "some additions to the right teaching of the Saviour". A fragment of apocryphon was discovered in 1886 and contained three passages which savoured strongly of Illusionism. The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d. 216), Stromata III.13 and VII.17, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of heretics being named after their own special error. The heresy itself, however, is much older, as it is combated in the New Testament. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, "the founder of Illusionism". This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ's human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects and can not therefore have originated with Cassianus. As Clement distinguished the Docetae from other Gnostic sects, he problably knew some sectaries the sum-total of whose errors consisted in this illusion theory; but Docetism, as far as at present known, as always an accompaniment of Gnosticism or later of Manichaeism. The Docetae described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, i-iv, X, xii) are likewise a Gnostic sect; these perhaps extended their illusion theory to all material substances....

(the other 80 percent of the article is on the listed page).

 

[Eutropius]

Interesting, however, I have been inside of several Orthodox churches, and none had icons like those. This is just my observation.

 

[Tonks]

Beyond the other issues...the "saintly halos" (for lack of a better word...I'm not too good with iconographic terminology) of those "in the womb" are a bit troubling to me. Dunno...that was the first thing that I picked up on.

 

[ikonographics]

Julia, you can't be serious saying that the Orthodox view of icons representing things in their spiritual state that has been transformed through Theosis and not in their physical state is docetism?

I know what Docetism is. In Orthodox theology it refers not only to the specific heresy, but to any teaching that denies the physical reality of the incarnation. Monophysitism is, in the end a form of docetism.

Where do the Church Fathers/Ecumenical Councils (not 20th/21st century theologians/philosophers) teach that icons represent things in their spiritual state?

I know what I'm saying and implying probably sounds shocking, but the fact is that the way icons are understood and interpreted today, has nothing to do with what the Church Fathers taught about the icon and how the Byzantines understood the icon. The icon is interpreted today as if it were modern art!

Obviously I'm going to have to explain what I'm talking about here, but at the moment I don't have time. I'll start up another thread so that this one doesn't go off track.

 

[MariaRegina]

I know I will be burnt at the stake for what I'm going to say, but speaking as a theologian and iconographer (I'm doing my doctorate on icons), I have to disagree and say that there is nothing theologically wrong with this icon. It depicts the historical reality of the Gospel story. That according to the Fathers and the councils is the purpose of the icon.
Nowhere, do the Fathers or the Councils teach that the icons are meant to portray some kind of "spiritual reality". The idea that icons are supposed to be "spiritual" and portray the "holiness" of the person depicted is found nowhere in the teachings of the Fathers, but appeared in the 20th century by Russian theologians living in the West who were trying to make icons acceptable in West which had rejected Byzantine iconography as primitive. The Fathers are completely realistic. The icon is to deptict the person/ hypostasis, not the essence/holiness/theosis and all the other interpretations that have been imposed in the icon in the 20th century. The icon is meant to deptict historical reality. To say that an icon of the crucifixion only deptics "spiritual reality" is docetism. It means that Christ was not crucified in reality but only spiritually. To say that the icon depicts "spiritual reality" not physical reality" is not Orthodox.

All that aside, it is also based on a model that most certainly wasn't influenced by any political campaign:

Besides, there are icons of the Annunciation that depict Christ superimposed on Panagia's womb:

Wow. St. John is bowing when Christ blesses him.