Icons...

[Dorothea]

Here's a quote from Fr. John Meyendorff on icons of Christ:

What appears on the image is the very hypostasis of God the Word in the flesh. In the Byzantine tradition the inscription around the halo surrounding the head of Jesus says "The One who is," the equivalent of the sacred name YHWH, the name of God, whose person is revealed, but whose essence is inaccessible. It is neither God's indescribable divinity nor His human nature alone which is represented on an icon, but the person of God the Son who took flesh.[6]

 

[Dorothea]

Do think that anyone would have cared if, in ancient Israel, someone said "I can't concentrate on God with those cherubim adorning the veil and all this incense and those bells ringing on the priest's robe!" They would have been told that that's how the corporate worship worked; if they wanted to pray alone in a bare room, they were free to do that, but the community worshiped according to the pattern laid down at Sinai. And that pattern in a representation of heaven.

If you look around a liturgical church and sit through the liturgy, what you see is a living representation of and participation in (rather than just the OT imitation of) the worship of God in the heavenly tabernacle as we see it in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. You are of course free to pray in your own way (in fact, that a big part of monastic spirituality), but the historic form of the liturgy and its cultural variations among Anglicans, Lutherans, the Orthodox, and Catholics are a continuation of and a Spirit-filled fulfillment of the heavenly pattern of worship that has resounded since Moses.

 

[Dorothea]

Here's a great article on what Icons are that I thought would be good to share here. I just stumbled upon it. Glory to God!

What do Icons Mean?

The very meaning of the icon has as its foundation the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. “And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). Christ is “the icon of the invisible God” (Col.1:15), and the transfiguration on the mount offers support of this (Matt. 17:1-13). It is because Christ became man and allowed man to glimpse on the divine glory of Heaven that we are able to write icons and venerate images of Christ, the Theotokos and the Saints. If Christ had not become incarnate, and had not revealed to us his transfigured glory on the mount, it would be impossible to depict the spiritual realm of Heaven in icons. Precisely because of the incarnation and transfiguration, everything in the icon is represented in relation to Divinity. As you will see this impacts all parts of the icon, from how the face is painted, to the robes, to even the “scenery” of the festal icons. While the incarnation is the basis of iconography, the icon itself in its role as a window into heaven, affirms the incarnation and speaks of God’s great mysteries. The chief task of the icon is to proclaim the wonder and mystery of Christ, the Theotokos and the saints, and yet at the same time, to remind us they were human like we are, and to call us to the same spiritual perfection which Christ’s incarnation allows us to seek. All naturalism, whether it is spacial, figural or proportional, is set aside and man, landscape and architecture are shown in a transfigured state.

One of the first things which I discovered about icons before converting to Orthodoxy is that icons are initially not easy to see. At first they appear distorted and unreal, almost impressionist or surreal, full of symbolism. In our society with its western art, we are very concerned with what something immediately says to our external, empirical senses. Society’s concern is with beautiful people, homes and cars, and it is not concerned that often under all this “beauty” lies death and internal corruption. Contrary to the way our society sees things, the icon is not meant to excite our external senses. It is not painted to depict the mundane everyday life, but rather the spiritual realm. It is written as a “window into Heaven,” a physical means which allows us to gaze into the invisible spiritual reality. The simplicity of the icon is not meant to stir your emotions but rather to quietly invite you to leave the world for a moment and guide every emotion toward the contemplation of the Divine. To Achieve this level of spiritual communion, one must quietly, prayerfully and patiently gaze on the image. It is the way to prayer, and the means of prayer itself.

The communion which the icon calls us to is achieved through a symbolic language which the icon uses. In order to convey this symbolic language the clothing styles, colors, gestures, architecture and human form in the icon are fixed. The painting of iconography must not be based on artistic speculation, emotion or abstract ideas because the icon depicts the mystery of Heaven. Rather, it is based soundly in the teachings of the Orthodox Church. To depict these teachings requires much study, meditation and attention to details, as well as artistic skill and an understanding of Orthodoxy. The iconographer must understand what parts of the icon he can adjust using his best artistic skills and what parts of the icon he ought to leave intact. How can someone who has no knowledge of Orthodoxy depict what is inherently Orthodox? The style of iconography is not meant to hold the painters of icons hostage to one particular style of painting, but rather to liberate them and allow for the continual painting of orthodox icons and defend against theological and iconographic heterodoxy. It is also there to liberate Orthodox Christians. One of the beautiful things about iconography is that an Orthodox Christian upon seeing an icon of Christ, the Theotokus, any of the more popular saints or a feast can instantly recognize the icon as such. This is not the case in western art. The way western artists have depicted the Theotokos, for example, has changed with each period of art and with each artist. Michael Quenots book “The Icon, Window on the Kingdom” has a wonderful illustration which depicts just this.

In order to allow for this language of iconography to be understood, certain meanings are ascribed to the subjects of the icon. People of importance in icons are often depicted as larger than other people in the icon and are always indicated by name on the icon. In icons of single saints, the saint is also ususally depicted with the instrument of his or her salvation. Bishops are usually depicted wearing episcopal robes, whether monastic or liturgical, holding the gospel and giving a blessing. The blessing hand is formed in the monogram of the name of Christ, ICXC, just as an Orthodox Priest blesses. The evangelists are depicted holding the gospel, St. Paul the epistles, and great spiritual writers a scroll with one of their more noted writings. Martyrs are depicted holding the crown of martyrdom, the cross or the instrument of their martyrdom. St. Andrei Rublev, the great Russian iconographer of the fifteenth century, is depicted holding the icon of the Trinity which he painted, and which the Russian church sees as the standard for all other icons. The subject in the icon is usually depicted looking straight at you, or at a 3/4 angle. Only when the person depicted in the icon has not yet achieved the spiritual perfection of Heaven are they depicted in a profile. Icons gaze into eternity, and yet while focused on the divinity, the transfigured icon is not avoiding the earthly realm but rather gently addressing it and calling it to be transfigured in Christ as well.

The physical features of the icon are also very important in conveying this symbolic spiritual language. The subject of the icon is a person transfigured by the love of Christ and thus the light of the icon is interior, not exterior as in other forms of art. Because of this the areas of the robes and skin which stick out the most have the brightest highlights. The forehead on many icons is often high and convex, to express the power of the spirit and wisdom. Ascetics, monks and bishops are given deep wrinkles in their cheeks. The nose of the icon is long and thin, which gives it a sense of gracefulness, it no longer smells the odors of the world, but rather the sweet incense of Heaven. The lips of the icon are closed expressing true contemplation, which requires total silence. The eyes are large and pronounced, gazing into Heaven. While the physical features of the face are spiritualized, they still retain a likeness to the saint depicted. Thus the face of St. Peter is different from that of his brother Andrew and from that of St. Paul. The hands are either holding the instrument of the depicted saint’s salvation, raised in a work of mercy, or giving a blessing. The blessing hand, when depicted, always blesses with the fingers formed in the monogram of the name of Christ, ICXC, the way an Orthodox priest blesses. The feet, if depicted, walk in the way of God. The halo symbolizes the Divine light which radiates from the person who lives in close communion with God.



For the rest of the article:
What do Icons Mean? – Almoutran

Incidentally, this article was written by one of our Iconagraphers in TAW.

 

[Dorothea]

Here's the second part:

Having said this about icon colors and artistic harmony let us now discuss the meanings commonly associated to colors. Gold is used to depict divinity as it is a rare and precious metal, when light strikes gold it gives a radiance which most closely reflects uncreated light. Gold leaf, or a golden color of paint is used for the halo. White, like gold, is used to depict uncreated light, as well as physical and spiritual purity. Christ’s robes at the transfiguration and from the resurrection on are painted white, or sometimes gold. The color blue is used to depict transcendence, truth and humility. A famous icon of St. Ignatius of Antioch depicts the saint wearing a deep blue robe with a blue background. The color serves to remind us of the great spiritual truths which St. Ignatius taught us. Red is the color of blood, martyrdom, youth and beauty, but also the color of sin and war. Martyrs are often depicted wearing red, or as the case with the famous Russian icon of St. George with a deep red background. In one icon the Prophet Elijah is depicted wearing a red robe with a red background because he was taken up to Heaven in a chariot of fire. Christ’s outer garments are blue and his under garments are red to symbolize that he is divine while being filled with humanity. The Theotokos’ outer garments are red, or a deep earthen tone, while her under garments are blue to symbolize that she is human while filled with divinity. Green is the color of the plant world and thus is used to denote spring time and revival. The first icon which I painted was the Angel Gabriel, who is depicted with a green robe, as he was the bearer of the message of the incarnation to Mary. The meaning of the color brown in icons can only be attained in connection with the rest of the icon. The rocks and buildings themselves have no meaning, but only have meaning in the larger context of the icon. Finally, black is the color of death, and the renunciation of earthly values. In the icon of the Last Judgement the damned are painted black as they have lost all hope of salvation. On the icon of the Cross, the cave under the cross is black which denotes death and despair, as are the caves on icons such as those of St. George and the Prophet Elijah. Monks are depicted wearing black robes as the black symbolizes the monk’s renunciation of all that is vain.

The “scenery” in the icon has its meaning in the larger context of the icon as well. Architecture and landscape serve only to tie the icon to a specific event in time. I recently painted for my wife an icon of the Wedding Feast at Cana for our wedding. The feast took place in doors, but in the icon it is shown with the building in the background. This is enough to convey to the viewer of the icon that the feast took place indoors. The icon of the Baptism of Russia has churches and buildings in the background, as well as physical scenery and many faithful depicted in order to convey the historical idea of where and when the event occurred. With the icon of Elijah in the dessert, it is enough to have Elijah sitting in front of a cave to convey the idea of Elijah’s presence in the cave. The same is true with the Nativity icon, and with the cave where the serpent is in the icon of St. George. The mountains and buildings in an icon such as that of St. George are there to give context.


What do Icons Mean? – Almoutran

 

[Kristos]

GratiaCorpusChristi


GratiaCorpusChristi,

But that does not accurately represent what it's namesake which the Ortodox use to defend their stance, means.

Eikon means a precise copy, a reproduction or an exact image. So the portrait of Christ the eikonian of God means He is the exact reproduction of God, therefore so should the portrait be an exact replication of Jesus, thee eikon.​

It is as exact an image to the eye as the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are to the ear. Apparently divine truth does not necessitate uniformity style and delivery in the exact sense you seem to imply here, only revelation and inspiration, and for the icon that is revealed in the Incarnation. People saw God with their own eyes, and when asked to show the Father, what did He say?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Jesus fulfilled the law, God set out a plan since the fall of Adam and what the high Priests done in the Old Testament was not always pleasing to God. I look for Christ in the old testament and live my live as best I can by the New. I simply don't see any point in relating back to the OT for inspiration in church. It it works for you, that's fine, but it just doesn't work for me. I eat pork, I've still got my foreskin, I don't sacrifice lambs, I don't need a high Priest to enter the holies of holies.......cause Christ is my rock, I can commune with him in person without the authority of ordained Reverents, Priests, Bishops, etc.

God bless

Obviously, I have to agree with you on many points. Christ is our sacrificial lamb, the veil is torn, markers of the covenant like circumcision and kosher laws have been broken down... but none of that changes the fact that the tabernacle is patterned on the eternal, heavenly tabernacle that we see not just in Isaiah. Ezekiel, and Daniel, but also in Revelation. The point is not about following practices of the Mosaic covenant, but what practices of the Mosaic covenant are patterned after eternal, higher realities- whether that be the liturgy or "thou shalt not murder." Obviously we follow the latter; the question is whether the liturgical pattern and environment is also eternal, and we see in both the Old and New Testaments that it is.

But if you're unfamiliar with the text of the liturgy, then I can see how you'd miss the similarities. The fact is, is that the texts of the liturgy, especially the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei, are taken straight from Revelation, and many other parts of the liturgy are patterned after the songs of the angels in Luke's nativity story. Our hymns are the very eternal hymns of heaven, supplemented by the hymns of the church from all ages.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you Dorothea, Kristos and GratiaCorpusChristi!

Great posts!

 

[I die daily]

It is as exact an image to the eye as the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are to the ear. Apparently divine truth does not necessitate uniformity style and delivery in the exact sense you seem to imply here, only revelation and inspiration, and for the icon that is revealed in the Incarnation. People saw God with their own eyes, and when asked to show the Father, what did He say?

Kristos,

Yes people saw the true God with their own eyes which recalls the question do the Orthodox consider icons to be God-breathed?
If not you can not compare the ear of the preaching of the gospel to the eye of an icon.

 

[I die daily]

It is not painted to depict the mundane everyday life, but rather the spiritual realm. It is written as a “window into Heaven,” a physical means which allows us to gaze into the invisible spiritual reality. The simplicity of the icon is not meant to stir your emotions but rather to quietly invite you to leave the world for a moment and guide every emotion toward the contemplation of the Divine. To Achieve this level of spiritual communion, one must quietly, prayerfully and patiently gaze on the image. It is the way to prayer, and the means of prayer itself.

Dorothea,

If icons are not God breathed then don't you run the risk gazeing into a spiritual reality facsade created by the adversary? For satan appears as an angel of light surely he can make art to be a stumbling stone for the faithful.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Lol. Does this happen to you often?

What do you mean?

 

[JesusFreak78]

No specifics, eh? This does not make your remarks very credible or believable on this.

I don't like to be inside the building, I find the service dead and shallow.

 

[JesusFreak78]

What's sad is that as a Jewish believer...

I'm not a Jewish believer.

 

[JesusFreak78]

so you didn't like the reading from the epistles or from the gospel or the hymns taken directly from the psalms?

They just read from it and that's it. I would have enjoyed it if I heard sound preaching from it.

 

[Kristos]

Kristos,

Yes people saw the true God with their own eyes which recalls the question do the Orthodox consider icons to be God-breathed?
If not you can not compare the ear of the preaching of the gospel to the eye of an icon.

In a nutshell, yes, but maybe this point should have been made earlier and more clearly - in MOST cases when I say icon, I mean Holy Icon - just like when I say scripture, I mean Holy Scripture. There are other gospels, but only one is Holy. Some might find it difficult that THE Holy Gospel is recorded in four different accounts, but I don't find any trouble with this. They are of one and must be treated as such. Translations of the Holy Scripture into other languages including English do not necessarily make it profane, although there do seem to be some profane translations out there. Holy Scripture can and has been translated and found to still be Holy. Holy Scripture is read and heard liturgically in the vernacular when possible for the edification of the people, but I'm sure they understand that Jesus didn't speak these exact words (ie in English) yet is still the Holy Gospel. Now a scholar might take it upon himself to learn koine Greek and study the extant manuscripts of Holy Scripture, but even then does he presume that these exact words were spoken in Greek? Perhaps they were inspired to be written in Greek, but surly no one thinks that every conversation is a literal transcription of the actual words spoken. This does not take anything away, because we can assert that the Holy Spirit lives and breaths in the Holy Church, whose function it is to guard and proclaim what is Holy. The Church guards and proclaims the Holy Gospel in it's historic form and also in it's translation into the vernacular, where according the Church it is still Holy. Like I said before though, this does not give free license to anyone and everyone to translate the Holy Scripture and still call it Holy. There are profane translations - "LOL Kat" for example I find profane, one might argue that but for the purposes of this explanation let's just take it as is.

SO...now let's apply the same thinking to other things that the Church describes as Holy, namely Holy Icons. In the same way, there are certainly icons that are profane, but that does mean that a proper icon cannot be Holy when accepted as such by the Church. They are inspired when the Body of Christ, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit recognizes them as such and calls them Holy. Some Holy Icons might look slightly different according to style and to some degree color, but when accepted as Holy by the Church it is recognized to be a true image of Him who dwelt among us, our Lord and Savoir, Jesus Christ.

 

[Kristos]

They just read from it and that's it. I would have enjoyed it if I heard sound preaching from it.

So what you really didn't like was the preaching? What was the subject? Every preacher has his highs and lows. I wouldn't judge him too harshly based on only a few data points. Maybe it's just not his gift.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Why even ask this question? The point is not to make a representation whose specific purpose is to project sinlessness. At the same time, because it does not do this, does not mean that it denies or rejects it (before you pounce on it). Why must you and simonzealot operate on red herrings and strawmen? Oh, presuppositions...

If the point is not to represent Christ appropriate, then you open a wide door to make an image of your own mind.

John 1:1 or Colossians 2:9 does not condemn or denigrate Christian iconography, either. Just like the statements in the OT law do not. Now, the fact that you want them to in order to serve your purpose, well, that is another story.

I didn't say those verses denied or confirmed iconography, but I said based on those two verses it's impossible to make an icon that represent Christ appropriate.

It is time to stop perpetuating these myths. Your presuppositions about Eastern Orthodoxy prevent you from coming to any positive conclusion about its beliefs. On the other hand, the Orthodox will not become iconoclastic, aniconic Evangelical Protestants and desire only to defend their beliefs from ignorant attacks, despite the numerous references to history that have been provided.

I don't try to convert anyone. I just simple trying show them what the bible is saying.

What is the "but" for? Nothing in Dorothea's explication of the two natures of Christ or the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council said anything about rejecting his absolute sinlessness. As I mentioned before about red herrings and strawmen...

I was talking about Christ being sinless and she said what I said sounded like I believed Christ didn't have two natures. So I confirmed I believed in Christ's two natures and with the "but" I went back to my previous point of Christ being sinless. I never said she didn't believe Christ was sinless.

Once again, the Orthodox have not been arguing that Christ can be represented in his absolute sense, as to ALL that he is. Rather, the iconographic tradition focuses on different aspects of his being. I have said this at least twice already; why do you persist in ignoring it?

If you want to represent Christ correctly, you need to represent all of Him and not only what fits you.

This statement presupposes that Orthodox iconographers desire to portray him in a sinful manner or to misrepresent him somehow. As has been said numerous times already, this is not the point. Stop perpetuating the myth.

I have never said they desire to present Christ in a sinful manner or to misrepresent Him. What I'm trying to say is that's what will happen when they make an icon of Christ.

As your apologetic reveals, I wonder how many icons in the Orthodox tradition you have actually seen or looked at with real interest. This is to say nothing about honestly investigating the history or the features of the iconographic tradition behind them.

I have seen plenty, but I turn my eyes away from them since I don't want to look upon a misrepresentation of Christ.

Honestly, though, would you admit it if you did? I doubt anyone expected you to say anything different. Those presuppositions...

If I had liked what I saw, I wouldn't been in here having this discussion.

No, we have already been through this. Neither you nor simon are "merely repeating what the Bible plainly says." Rather, you are providing the specific opinion at which you have arrived based upon a set of presuppositions through which you filter the text. In this particular discussion, it those are that Christian iconography is incontrovertibly "idoloatry" and "graven images," and that Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong. The game is not fooling anyone.

I'm not playing a game and we are all (regardless of where we are coming from) have some kind of presuppositions regardless of we want to admit it or not.

 

[Kristos]

I don't like to be inside the building, I find the service dead and shallow.

Perhaps you need some further explanation because nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[JesusFreak78]

So what you really didn't like was the preaching? What was the subject? Every preacher has his highs and lows. I wouldn't judge him too harshly based on only a few data points. Maybe it's just not his gift.

I don't remember the different topics I have heard, but I find them shallow and I don't agree with what they are saying.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Perhaps you need some further explanation because nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe it's as far as from the truth as it gets for you, but this is how I experience it.

 

[Nanopants]

What do you mean?

Well, I'd be a bit more understanding of your comment if you frequently invite people into your home just to have them say something like that, that they didn't like anything they saw.

Otherwise I don't quite know why you would think that was appropriate.