Depiction of God the Father in Iconography.

[Kolya]

I know this is almost a taboo among Orthodox, but I have seen it before. But I must admit I was very taken aback :scratch:when I saw this (http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f007.htm) from the site of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow.

What do you make of that Michael?
BTW, for those who can't read Russian it says "Logos" on the scroll in Christ's left hand.
Kolya

[Michael the Iconographer]

All forms of depicting the Father in iconography other than the OT Trinity were declared to be uncanonical by the council of 100 Chapters of Moscow in the 1600s. While that is a local council, it certainly was and is binding to Russia. This is also not the only form in which I have seen the Father depicted. There are about 6 or so "trinity icons" styles that I know of, none of which are canonical. The fact that it is in one of the cathedrals in Moscow also doesn't surprise me either because the Russian iconographers tended to ignore the declarations of their bishops on these matters. Thus such works are pretty available in Russia. Nonetheless, it is wrong. I am very much offended by such paintings because they clearly go against what Christ said many times over: no one has seen the Father but me, he who has seen me has seen the Father. The only canonical way to depict the Father in iconography is in the OT Trinity.

[Dewi Sant]

I really don't like that icon, it's scary:eek: . Those huge startled eyes. It looks weird.


I notice that the Father is wearing a pink robe. He has also got grey hair and white skin.
He looks identical to the Father in the sistine chapel

http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~otown/RMLadamG.gif
:sigh:



At the celebration of Orthodoxy I picked up what I thought was a theotokos but it had "the father" above Mary, sort of swooping down off a cloud with angels.
This to me seemed really odd.
Is this Icon of the Father or is the man swooping down over Mary meant to be someone else?
I will try to search for an image like it.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It could be Christ as "The Ancient of Days" I would have to see the Halo to tell you for sure.

[Kolya]

At the celebration of Orthodoxy I picked up what I thought was a theotokos but it had "the father" above Mary, sort of swooping down off a cloud with angels.
This to me seemed really odd.
Is this Icon of the Father or is the man swooping down over Mary meant to be someone else?
I will try to search for an image like it.

Are you thinking of one of these? This is the "Reigning" icon of the Theotokos and was said to have been discovered at the onset of the 1917 Revolution.

[Dewi Sant]

It is very similar if not the same one.

It was most like the second one. Not in icon style.
And there were angels round her.

[Kolya]

It is very similar if not the same one.

It was most like the second one. Not in icon style.
And there were angels round her.
I've wondered about the "Old Man" above her too. Though it could be the Ancient of Days.

[Matrona]

I know this is almost a taboo among Orthodox, but I have seen it before. But I must admit I was very taken aback :scratch:when I saw this (http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f007.htm) from the site of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow.

I think that the fact that there are so many wonder-working icons representing God the Father as an old man proves it's not wrong to do so. Don't you remember having this beautiful icon as your avatar, Kolya?

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=72451

Easily abused, perhaps, but certainly no more intrinsically wrong than representing the Holy Spirit as a gold disc surrounding someone's head. :) I've seen icons of St. Raphael and the Holy Royal Martyrs as well as their photographs, and I can see none of them walked around with a glowing circle around his or her head to represent the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. If that were possible, deciding who to canonize would be really easy and nobody would argue about the HRM's. :)

In the particular case pointed out in the OP, however, that icon is really disturbingly ugly. :D And as Christ is a grown-up, not a child, it seems rather strange to depict him as a child in heaven. If that were in my church I would vote to plaster over it. The Father's "eyes" look like the kind of eyes that follow people around. :eek:

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think that the fact that there are so many wonder-working icons representing God the Father as an old man proves it's not wrong to do so. Don't you remember having this beautiful icon as your avatar, Kolya?

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=72451

Easily abused, perhaps, but certainly no more intrinsically wrong than representing the Holy Spirit as a gold disc surrounding someone's head. :) I've seen icons of St. Raphael and the Holy Royal Martyrs as well as their photographs, and I can see none of them walked around with a glowing circle around his or her head to represent the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. If that were possible, deciding who to canonize would be really easy and nobody would argue about the HRM's. :)

In the particular case pointed out in the OP, however, that icon is really disturbingly ugly. :D And as Christ is a grown-up, not a child, it seems rather strange to depict him as a child in heaven. If that were in my church I would vote to plaster over it. The Father's "eyes" look like the kind of eyes that follow people around. :eek:

Let me reiterate that a council binding to the country of Russia (The Council of 100 Chapters) has declared all icons of God the Father that are NOT of the model done by Rubelev are uncanonical. I would go further to say they are outright idolatry. I don't have the time to waste here to go into a deep theological explanation of why depicting God the Father in an icon is idolatry, but it is.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I've wondered about the "Old Man" above her too. Though it could be the Ancient of Days.

I can't get a good enough look at his halo. If his halo is Cruciform (has a cross in it) he is the Ancient of Days.

[nutroll]

There were many times in the OT when people were said to have seen God in one form or another. Adam saw God and heard the sound of his feet. Jacob saw God and wrestled God. Moses saw the back of God as if it were the back of a man. Isaiah saw Him as a man seated on a throne. Daniel saw Him as a man as the Ancient of Days. This is in addition to the appearance of God to Abraham at the Oak of Mamre which is the basis for the icon of the OT Trinity.

For those who believe in depictions of God the Father, these appearances are enough for them to say that it is a fair representation because even in icons of Christ, we are never able to depict the essence of God. There is however an understanding that goes back to the formulations of St. John of Damascus and earlier that these things were a sort of glimpse of the future when the Son of God would take on human form. The former images of God were in a sense a shadow of the Incarnation to come.

The particular image referred to in this thread is often called Fatherhood, and is supposed to represent the pre-eternal birth of the Son of God. The Moscow council of 1667 rejected the notion that God the Father could be depicted, saying "To represent the God of Sabaoth (that is, the Father) on icons with a grey beard, with His Only Son on His lap, and a dove between Them, is exceedingly absurd and unseemly, since no one has seen God the Father. For the Father has no flesh, and it was not in the flesh that the Son was born from the Father before all ages"

Unfortunately, this depiction is found practically everywhere, having its origins in the 11th century. As with any icons (though I would say this would not be a true icon) people become attached. They begin to see them as works of art to be preserved, or a testament to their ancestors who commissioned the work to beautify their church. As such, it is exceptionally difficult to eradicate these heretical images from churches. And the fact that there is enough in the OT for people to construct an argument in their favor that sounds credible to the average person makes it even more difficult.

To be clear, God the Father should never be depicted. We must also recognize that although the Holy Spirit has appeared in the form of a dove and as tongues of fire, "the Holy Spirit is not in His essence a dove, but God... At the holy Baptism of Christ in Jordan the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and therefore in this context alone should the Holy Spirit be depicted as a dove." (Acts of Moscow Councils 1666-1667). As such, it is wrong to have the Holy Spirit in the Father's lap as a dove. The only accepted iconography of the Trinity is the Hospitality of Abraham/ Holy Trinity.

[nutroll]

also as others have pointed out, that particular painting is pretty ugly. I felt the need to take things down a notch.

[Kolya]

There were many times in the OT when people were said to have seen God in one form or another. Adam saw God and heard the sound of his feet. Jacob saw God and wrestled God. Moses saw the back of God as if it were the back of a man. Isaiah saw Him as a man seated on a throne. Daniel saw Him as a man as the Ancient of Days. This is in addition to the appearance of God to Abraham at the Oak of Mamre which is the basis for the icon of the OT Trinity.

For those who believe in depictions of God the Father, these appearances are enough for them to say that it is a fair representation because even in icons of Christ, we are never able to depict the essence of God. There is however an understanding that goes back to the formulations of St. John of Damascus and earlier that these things were a sort of glimpse of the future when the Son of God would take on human form. The former images of God were in a sense a shadow of the Incarnation to come.

The particular image referred to in this thread is often called Fatherhood, and is supposed to represent the pre-eternal birth of the Son of God. The Moscow council of 1667 rejected the notion that God the Father could be depicted, saying "To represent the God of Sabaoth (that is, the Father) on icons with a grey beard, with His Only Son on His lap, and a dove between Them, is exceedingly absurd and unseemly, since no one has seen God the Father. For the Father has no flesh, and it was not in the flesh that the Son was born from the Father before all ages"

Unfortunately, this depiction is found practically everywhere, having its origins in the 11th century. As with any icons (though I would say this would not be a true icon) people become attached. They begin to see them as works of art to be preserved, or a testament to their ancestors who commissioned the work to beautify their church. As such, it is exceptionally difficult to eradicate these heretical images from churches. And the fact that there is enough in the OT for people to construct an argument in their favor that sounds credible to the average person makes it even more difficult.

To be clear, God the Father should never be depicted. We must also recognize that although the Holy Spirit has appeared in the form of a dove and as tongues of fire, "the Holy Spirit is not in His essence a dove, but God... At the holy Baptism of Christ in Jordan the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and therefore in this context alone should the Holy Spirit be depicted as a dove." (Acts of Moscow Councils 1666-1667). As such, it is wrong to have the Holy Spirit in the Father's lap as a dove. The only accepted iconography of the Trinity is the Hospitality of Abraham/ Holy Trinity.

Very well put nutroll! And I totally agre with your last sentence.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Hangs head in disbelief at the fact there are people who consider themselves experts in iconography enough to plaster over things for inept reasons and yet those same people totally disregard Canonical Orthodox Councils decisions on matters of iconography.

Let me ask anyone who has become attached to a picture with the old man in it? Just because everyone is doing something that is blatantly wrong, will you go out and do the same thing? If you answer no, then why is iconography any different?

Nutroll, thank you for posting the quote from the Council of Moscow (aka the Council of 100 Chapters).

[Vasya Davidovich]

I've wondered about the "Old Man" above her too. Though it could be the Ancient of Days.
I thought the Ancient of Days was Christ.

Referring to Daniel (where Ancient of Days mentioned) and Revelation (where He is clearly identified as Christ).

V.

[Kolya]

I thought the Ancient of Days was Christ.

Referring to Daniel (where Ancient of Days mentioned) and Revelation (where He is clearly identified as Christ).

V.

Well V, that is my point of view on this too.:) The Ancient of Days is Christ.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I thought the Ancient of Days was Christ.

Referring to Daniel (where Ancient of Days mentioned) and Revelation (where He is clearly identified as Christ).

V.

The Ancient of Days is Christ. The Ancient of Days will have a cross in his halo, whereas the Old Man with the Star of David in his halo is clearly God the Father.

[RobNJ]

This subject came up, while I was having classes with my priest. He said that unfortunately, during the reign of Peter The Great, his attemps to make Russia look more "western European" included allowing religious art that more western than Russian. And it even "contaminated" the writing of icons.

[Khaleas]

Yes, people do become attached. Maybe not so much here in the US, but definitely in Russia. Just about any icon store sells that particular icon. IIRC Sofrino has a version of it too, but people know it's not right, however, it's an attachment thing. It's something tangible for them and they can 'see and believe'.
I'm not saying it's right in any way, but if someone is going to believe in God because of that icon I'd rather keep it around. We have it in our church and it's not going anywhere right now. As far as we know, the church has said that if it's there it doesn't have to be removed, but not to paint any new ones. Thing is, some people have attended that church for many years and just recently realized that icon is there because we were talking about it. I don't want it in my house but I'm not going to judge anyone who does.

[Michael the Iconographer]

This subject came up, while I was having classes with my priest. He said that unfortunately, during the reign of Peter The Great, his attemps to make Russia look more "western European" included allowing religious art that more western than Russian. And it even "contaminated" the writing of icons.

Yes, from my studies of Russian History in college, Peter the Great was very anti-Russian. He disliked Russia because he saw it as being backwards and wanted Russia to be more western, more like Lutheran eastern Germany. He did much to westernize Russia. He saw Orthodox Christianity as part of why Russia was backwards and thus did away with the Patriarchate and made the Church a subject of the state. He encouraged "iconography" that was painted in oils, not understanding the beauty and grace of classical Russian iconography. The western type "icons" had already crept into Russia about 100 years earlier, as can be seen with the work of Simon Ushakov. But Ushakov's work still retains a classical Russian iconographic element to it, whereas the stuff produced in the 1700s-early 1900s has no classical form to it at all. Luckily, not all icons written during this time were western.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Yes, from my studies of Russian History in college, Peter the Great was very anti-Russian. He disliked Russia because he saw it as being backwards and wanted Russia to be more western, more like Lutheran eastern Germany. He did much to westernize Russia. He saw Orthodox Christianity as part of why Russia was backwards and thus did away with the Patriarchate and made the Church a subject of the state. He encouraged "iconography" that was painted in oils, not understanding the beauty and grace of classical Russian iconography. The western type "icons" had already crept into Russia about 100 years earlier, as can be seen with the work of Simon Ushakov. But Ushakov's work still retains a classical Russian iconographic element to it, whereas the stuff produced in the 1700s-early 1900s has no classical form to it at all. Luckily, not all icons written during this time were western.
There are reasons I never refer to this man as anything but Peter the so-called Great.

I remember reading a child's biography of Tsar Peter when I was nine or thereabouts - I never have gotten over the horror I felt on reading of the forcible removal of the boyars' beards. Even then I knew this was not right, and I hated the book for sympathizing with him and for the "amusing" pictures of the beard-cutting.

This man was Orthodox?

[makes spitting sound of contempt]

[Michael the Iconographer]

There are reasons I never refer to this man as anything but Peter the so-called Great.

I remember reading a child's biography of Tsar Peter when I was nine or thereabouts - I never have gotten over the horror I felt on reading of the forcible removal of the boyars' beards. Even then I knew this was not right, and I hated the book for sympathizing with him and for the "amusing" pictures of the beard-cutting.

This man was Orthodox?

[makes spitting sound of contempt]

My Russian History professor and academic advisor in college had us openly debate whether or not Peter was Great after we studied him in depth. The Prof (Dr. Jakobsen) was under the belief that Peter did many things that were not in the best interest of the Russian people.

[Monica, child of God]

Is the image in the OP even an icon? There is no halo, cruciform or otherwise, behind Christ's head that I can see. Or am i missing something?

I'm not saying it's right in any way, but if someone is going to believe in God because of that icon I'd rather keep it around.

But are they believing right things about God? Mormons believe that God the Father has a body which is clearly heresy. Does this "icon" dispute that false belief? I think Michael's point about idolatry is one to think about.

M.

[Kolya]

Is the image in the OP even an icon? There is no halo, cruciform or otherwise, behind Christ's head that I can see. Or am i missing something?
M.

It seems to be part of this (http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f006.htm) fresco in the dome. Is a fresco an icon? I don't know.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think Michael's point about idolatry is one to think about.

M.

I do not have the time to go into an theological/spiritual dissertation of why this is so, but it is the truth. If anyone has the time to read "The Icon a Theology of Beauty" by Paul Evdokimov there is a solid explanation of why this is the case in that book. I guess I can sum up my point by saying this: in the OT we could not make images of God because we had not yet seen him. To make an image of an unseen God is idolatry. In the NT with the Incarnation we can now make images of Christ, for we have seen Christ. Christ said "he who has seen me has seen the Father, and no one has seen the Father but me." If no one has seen the Father, we can't make images of him because to make an image of an unseen God is idolatry. We have seen Christ, because he became incarnate, and thus he is depictable. The only time God the Father is depictable is where he has made himself manifest. This is the reason why he is depictable in the OT Trinity. This is also the reason the Spirit is depictable as a dove in the Theophany (and ONLY in the Theophany icon)-because the HS descended on Christ as a dove.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It seems to be part of http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f006.htm fresco in the dome. Is a fresco an icon? I don't know.

Frescos are iconography. An art historian might draw a fine line between an icon on a panel and a fresco on a wall, but they are still both iconography.

[Vasya Davidovich]

But are they believing right things about God? Mormons believe that God the Father has a body which is clearly heresy. Does this "icon" dispute that false belief? I think Michael's point about idolatry is one to think about.
I concur.

[Monica, child of God]

It seems to be part of this (http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f006.htm) fresco in the dome. Is a fresco an icon? I don't know.

As far as I know frescos in Orthodox Churches are icons. They should follow all the rules of iconography, including the cruciform halo behind the head of Christ.

M.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Hey mods, not to derail the thread, but can you in any way get the number of reps we can pass out in one day upped from 10 to 20? I am finding many, many people who deserve reps this morning and am going to run out very, very soon!

Ok, back to the topic of the Old Man and a Dove in paintings that look like Iconography but aren't because they don't follow the canons.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I do not have the time to go into an theological/spiritual dissertation of why this is so, but it is the truth. If anyone has the time to read "The Icon a Theology of Beauty" by Paul Evdokimov there is a solid explanation of why this is the case in that book. I guess I can sum up my point by saying this: in the OT we could not make images of God because we had not yet seen him. To make an image of an unseen God is idolatry. In the NT with the Incarnation we can now make images of Christ, for we have seen Christ. Christ said "he who has seen me has seen the Father, and no one has seen the Father but me." If no one has seen the Father, we can't make images of him because to make an image of an unseen God is idolatry. We have seen Christ, because he became incarnate, and thus he is depictable. The only time God the Father is depictable is where he has made himself manifest. This is the reason why he is depictable in the OT Trinity. This is also the reason the Spirit is depictable as a dove in the Theophany (and ONLY in the Theophany icon)-because the HS descended on Christ as a dove.
I can't rep you again, Mike the Ike.

[Kolya]

I can't rep you again, Mike the Ike.

Well, I can!;)

[RobNJ]

Hey mods, not to derail the thread, but can you in any way get the number of reps we can pass out in one day upped from 10 to 20? I am finding many, many people who deserve reps this morning and am going to run out very, very soon!


Sorry, Mods are subject to The Evil Rep Nazi's too!!:doh:

[Matrona]

The particular image referred to in this thread is often called Fatherhood, and is supposed to represent the pre-eternal birth of the Son of God. The Moscow council of 1667 rejected the notion that God the Father could be depicted, saying "To represent the God of Sabaoth (that is, the Father) on icons with a grey beard, with His Only Son on His lap, and a dove between Them, is exceedingly absurd and unseemly, since no one has seen God the Father. For the Father has no flesh, and it was not in the flesh that the Son was born from the Father before all ages"

Unfortunately, this depiction is found practically everywhere, having its origins in the 11th century. As with any icons (though I would say this would not be a true icon) people become attached. They begin to see them as works of art to be preserved, or a testament to their ancestors who commissioned the work to beautify their church. As such, it is exceptionally difficult to eradicate these heretical images from churches. And the fact that there is enough in the OT for people to construct an argument in their favor that sounds credible to the average person makes it even more difficult.

I think we need to distinguish between two separate issues brought up by the OP's icon: the depiction of God the Father as an old man, and the depiction of God the Son as a young child. I made clear my feelings on the first issue in another post already. If you're referring to the depictions of the Father as heretical, I have to register my fervent disagreement. These depictions can be misinterpreted easily, so I'm glad they aren't terribly common, but if they actually violated II Nicaea, the same arguments could easily be used against more "accepted" symbols used in iconography. You can take Our Lady of Sitka when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

On the other hand, I think that depicting God the Son as a young child at his "eternal-begottenness", however, is probably heretical: depicting the "eternal-begottenness" at all is probably wrong according to II Nicaea since it seems to me to be an attempt to depict the Divine Nature, and II Nicaea speaks against that fairly explicitly. Furthermore, the icon flies in the face of "eternal-begottenness": how can He be a pre-incarnate baby and then a pre-incarnate adult later on?! Ironically, considering what it's supposed to depict, this icon seems to hand ammunition to the Arians! So if Orthodox bishops (who are the ones with business interpreting and applying canons, not us laypeople who have never even been to seminary) decide this icon is heretical and take it down and burn it, I won't weep at all. :)

The icons in CtS Moscow are fairly new, anyway, IIRC. I don't think anyone will miss it.

[Rick of Wessex]

Christ is Risen!

Hello, everyone.

Leonid Ouspensky, in his book The Theology of the Icon, says:

The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council repeat the authoritative argument of Pope Gregory II, contained in his letter to the Emperor Leo III the Esaurian:" 'Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is...And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art'

"Among the other errors, we often find the image of God the Father. This image has been particularly widespread in the Orthodox Church since the seventeenth century..to analyze it..in respect to the prohibition of God the Father on the part of the Great Council of Moscow in 1666-1667...As we see, the Seventh Ecumenical Council speaks of the absence of God the Father, who is not incarnate and consequently is invisible and non-representable."

[Michael the Iconographer]

Christ is Risen!

Hello, everyone.

Leonid Ouspensky, in his book The Theology of the Icon, says:

Ouspensky was not only a great iconologist but also a very talented iconographer. I have a book with photographs of his work, which is very classical Russian and very beautiful.

[Vasileios]

If I am not mistaken certain Fathers have said that Adam in Paradise actually saw Christ and heard His footsteps. I remember my mother telling me so but I would be interested to hear something confirming that. As I remember there is a term for a very few people called "theoptes" (pl.), meaning having actually seen God, including saints and prophets like Moses or St. Andrew. If I am not mistaken again, I think none of these described God the Father at all, as an old man with a white beard.

I have seen quite a few of these icons, in Orthodox churches here as well. The cretan school of iconography was unfortunately very much influenced by Western art, what with having El Greco creating a bridge between the two worlds and this remained until quite recently. It crept up north too, not just in Crete. I think I have seen such a depiction of God the Father in Mount Athos too in some modern (well, Mount Athos modern, 18th century onwards) frescoes...

I never liked them and all immediate family and circle of friends, priests and bishops dont like them much either (some stronglier than others...). I think the general consensus is since they have been around for centuries, let them be, only if slowly but surely remove them quietly, naturally, without making a big fuss about them. I believe most churches will by themselves remove them in time, at least thats what I get from here in Crete...

The most common depiction of the Holy Trinity in Greece by far is in the Baptism of Christ, where the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove and God the Father as a hand pointing/blessing Christ from above. In Greek the feast is called Theofania (The presence/revealing of God). Dunno if this is what has been mentioned already (I dont know abbreviations and only a little English orthodox terminology!)

[Michael the Iconographer]

If I am not mistaken certain Fathers have said that Adam in Paradise actually saw Christ and heard His footsteps. I remember my mother telling me so but I would be interested to hear something confirming that. As I remember there is a term for a very few people called "theoptes" (pl.), meaning having actually seen God, including saints and prophets like Moses or St. Andrew. If I am not mistaken again, I think none of these described God the Father at all, as an old man with a white beard.

I have seen quite a few of these icons, in Orthodox churches here as well. The cretan school of iconography was unfortunately very much influenced by Western art, what with having El Greco creating a bridge between the two worlds and this remained until quite recently. It crept up north too, not just in Crete. I think I have seen such a depiction of God the Father in Mount Athos too in some modern (well, Mount Athos modern, 18th century onwards) frescoes...

I never liked them and all immediate family and circle of friends, priests and bishops dont like them much either (some stronglier than others...). I think the general consensus is since they have been around for centuries, let them be, only if slowly but surely remove them quietly, naturally, without making a big fuss about them. I believe most churches will by themselves remove them in time, at least thats what I get from here in Crete...

The most common depiction of the Holy Trinity in Greece by far is in the Baptism of Christ, where the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove and God the Father as a hand pointing/blessing Christ from above. In Greek the feast is called Theofania (The presence/revealing of God). Dunno if this is what has been mentioned already (I dont know abbreviations and only a little English orthodox terminology!)

In icons of the creation, it is always Christ who is doing the creating.

In icons of the Theophany (Baptism in the Jordan) it is allowable to have the hand of God coming from Heaven with the Holy Spirit as a Dove because this is what actually took place.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think we need to distinguish between two separate issues brought up by the OP's icon: the depiction of God the Father as an old man, and the depiction of God the Son as a young child. I made clear my feelings on the first issue in another post already. If you're referring to the depictions of the Father as heretical, I have to register my fervent disagreement. These depictions can be misinterpreted easily, so I'm glad they aren't terribly common, but if they actually violated II Nicaea, the same arguments could easily be used against more "accepted" symbols used in iconography. You can take Our Lady of Sitka when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

On the other hand, I think that depicting God the Son as a young child at his "eternal-begottenness", however, is probably heretical: depicting the "eternal-begottenness" at all is probably wrong according to II Nicaea since it seems to me to be an attempt to depict the Divine Nature, and II Nicaea speaks against that fairly explicitly. Furthermore, the icon flies in the face of "eternal-begottenness": how can He be a pre-incarnate baby and then a pre-incarnate adult later on?! Ironically, considering what it's supposed to depict, this icon seems to hand ammunition to the Arians! So if Orthodox bishops (who are the ones with business interpreting and applying canons, not us laypeople who have never even been to seminary) decide this icon is heretical and take it down and burn it, I won't weep at all. :)

The icons in CtS Moscow are fairly new, anyway, IIRC. I don't think anyone will miss it.

The iconography expert has spoken. Luckily feelings don't govern iconography. The Church is clear about paintings of the Old Man, they are not icons of God the Father because he is not depictable. It is also clear about icons of Christ as a young boy. Perhaps you would like to take a look at some icons of "Christ, He who does not sleep"? As for lay people interpretting iconography, last I checked I have been studying the subject for 10 years, have been published multiple times and had my work published multiple times, have been invited by the Brotherhood of Orthodox Clergy of Greater Pittsburgh to lecture on the subject at the Icon Festival and have taught a college level class on iconography. I stand behind my credentials as both an iconographer and iconologist.

[zhilan]

Unfortunately in my church there are some modern depictions of God the father and rather western looking paintings. The priest very much dislikes this, but I guess it's a major ordeal to repaint the entire church.

[choirfiend]

I think you're alone in your defense of God the Father images, Matrona. They're wrong. The fact that we can still treasure some of them or that miracles are still wrought by God through them just speaks to God's constant efforts to reach us, even when we're wrong. I never even saw one until a few years ago (thankfully none of the churches I went to had any) but I have see a number of them now--this mostly Russian based problem is even spreading to the Greeks, as the Greek church I visited in February, Holy Trinity, had like 3 or 4 of them in the Narthex and Nave. They are creepy.

[Matrona]

I think you're alone in your defense of God the Father images, Matrona.

"Matrona contra mundum"? :D

And I did have Maximus on my side before, so it's not quite just me. :)

They're wrong. The fact that we can still treasure some of them or that miracles are still wrought by God through them just speaks to God's constant efforts to reach us, even when we're wrong. I never even saw one until a few years ago (thankfully none of the churches I went to had any) but I have see a number of them now--this mostly Russian based problem is even spreading to the Greeks, as the Greek church I visited in February, Holy Trinity, had like 3 or 4 of them in the Narthex and Nave. They are creepy.

I'm afraid I still have to disagree. I just don't think God would give the appearance of condoning heresy. Several so-called miraculous apparitions support false teachings. Orthodox commentators debunk them based on those false teachings. If false teaching is grounds for debunking a miracle, why don't people try to debunk the miracles given to us through the icons based on the content of the image?

Representing God the Father this way may not be exactly kosher, but unless one's middle name is 'ecumenical council', I just think it's overstepping one's personal boundaries to actually label them heretical. To me, this is on the level of organs and pews--foreign to our tradition, but not worth having a conniption fit over.

[nutroll]

The image of "Fatherhood" has Byzantine origins. The first appearance that we know of was in a manuscript of writings of St. John of the Ladder. So in a sense, it is wrong to blame the west for it. It later moved to the west where it became the accepted way to depict the Trinity. Then as iconographers were influenced more by the west it crept back into Orthodox Churches. I would hesitate to call it idolatry only because I would never want to give the impression that we worship any image. It is based on poor Theology, a misunderstanding of both the Trinity and the Incarnation, and should not have a place in the Orthodox Church, and as such, I see it more as heresy than idolatry. But then again, both heresy and idolatry ought to be avoided. I don't know what the solution is to getting them out of our churches, except to educate people in what is right. It is a very difficult proposition because for better or worse there is a lot of emotion when it comes to iconography, which is a good and a bad thing. If you have ever looked at an icon and felt tears well up in your eyes, you know the power of icons. We want people to care about icons, we want them to form emotional attachments with the subjects of icons through contemplation. We can't expect people to just turn this off. We need to educate them, but also give them proper images to touch their hearts.

[nutroll]

but unless one's middle name is 'ecumenical council'

Note to self, give first born child the middle name "ecumenical-council"....

[Matrona]

Note to self, give first born child the middle name "ecumenical-council"....

Your last name isn't Zappa, is it? ;)

[nutroll]

Your last name isn't Zappa, is it? ;)
No but that's a good last name for a kid. Now all I need is a first name...

[Vasya Davidovich]

No but that's a good last name for a kid. Now all I need is a first name...
Apple.

Apple Ecumenical-Council Zappa.

Has a ring to it, I think.
:P

[nutroll]

Well that's all for tonight's show, and thank you to everyone for playing "NAME THAT KID!" (applause)

[repentant]

This is the Dome of St. Nicholas GOC in Tarpon Springs. This is where the EP came for the Epiphany Celebration...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/domeofstnick.jpg

[Michael the Iconographer]

This is the Dome of St. Nicholas GOC in Tarpon Springs. This is where the EP came for the Epiphany Celebration...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/domeofstnick.jpg

And that picture (I refuse to call it an icon) is canonically invalid.

[repentant]

I know....but just wanted to share. It is very old but still...makes me wonder why they put it there..should have put Christ the Pantocrator or something.

[Monica, child of God]

Apple.

Apple Ecumenical-Council Zappa.

Has a ring to it, I think.
:P

I actually think this is a step up from Dweezil, Diva Muffin and Moon Unit, the real Zappa kids.

M.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I know....but just wanted to share. It is very old but still...makes me wonder why they put it there..should have put Christ the Pantocrator or something.

Old doesn't mean right.

[Matrona]

This is the Dome of St. Nicholas GOC in Tarpon Springs. This is where the EP came for the Epiphany Celebration...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/domeofstnick.jpg

Aaaah, nooooo! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

What I don't understand is how anyone can get so worked up about icons like that, when we have things like this (http://www.cnsnews.com/video/2005/9509ChurchDesecration.wmv) affecting our brothers and sisters.

[nutroll]

OK, that was truly horrible. It was like watching a snuff film. Where was that from? Who were those people? Anyway, I think you have made a very good point that there are worse things in the world.... but that still doesn't make it right to have God the Father painted on the ceiling of the church.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Aaaah, nooooo! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

What I don't understand is how anyone can get so worked up about icons like that, when we have things like this (http://www.cnsnews.com/video/2005/9509ChurchDesecration.wmv) affecting our brothers and sisters.

People being terrorized for being Orthodox in pagan countries is a totally different issue than God the Father beind heretically depicted. You can not confuse one with the other. I can get worked up over the muslims harassing Orthodox Christians, but that does not effect in any way my view of heretical pictures of the Father. I get worked up over the pictures of the Father because that picture of God the Father is heretical and non-canonical.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Anyway, I think you have made a very good point that there are worse things in the world.... but that still doesn't make it right to have God the Father painted on the ceiling of the church.

One evil does not justify the existence of another evil. Both are wrong.

[Matrona]

OK, that was truly horrible. It was like watching a snuff film. Where was that from? Who were those people?

The thread I saw it in on OC.net said it was Bosnian soldiers in a Serbian Orthodox church. It didn't say where they did it. I hope one day every one of those soldiers repents before the faces of God and His Mother.

Anyway, I think you have made a very good point that there are worse things in the world.... but that still doesn't make it right to have God the Father painted on the ceiling of the church.

Putting down genuine heresy is obviously extremely important even when faced with persecution--St. Irenaeus certainly thought so--but these images aren't heretical, just a minor annoyance if anything.

[nutroll]

But this is genuine heresy. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of God the Father. The reason that we are allowed to have icons, even required to have them, is that God became depictable by becoming man. Yet the Father remained undepictable. If God the Father was depictable, there would have been images of God the Father all the way back to the OT. As for whether there are miraculous images where the image itself is heretical, I would say that God can work through even the worst sinners. Why then can't God work through a heretical icon? In many cases people do not have proper iconography. I believe God works through what we have. That doesn't mean that we should have bad iconography or improper iconography, it just means that God will reach us no matter what we have.

[Michael the Iconographer]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nutroll again.

[Matrona]

But this is genuine heresy. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of God the Father. The reason that we are allowed to have icons, even required to have them, is that God became depictable by becoming man. Yet the Father remained undepictable. If God the Father was depictable, there would have been images of God the Father all the way back to the OT.

I interpret the representation of God the Father as an old man as a symbol, not a depiction. God the Father is not an old man, nor does He look like one (as far as I know, which I don't :) ), but He is a Father, and when I think of a Father, I think of an old man.

As for whether there are miraculous images where the image itself is heretical, I would say that God can work through even the worst sinners. Why then can't God work through a heretical icon? In many cases people do not have proper iconography. I believe God works through what we have. That doesn't mean that we should have bad iconography or improper iconography, it just means that God will reach us no matter what we have.

I think I already dealt with this. The apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes both professed false teachings, and these false teachings are often used by Orthodox to debunk the apparitions and argue why people (Orthodox, at least) shouldn't believe in them. Besides, there are plenty of Orthodox icons around that don't depict the Father. Why wouldn't God choose to make only those icons miraculous instead of working an allegedly-heretical icon? God is mysterious but He's not out to trick us or pull the rug out from under us.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Ditto on the reputation for nutroll thing.

Who is this guy?

I like what he is saying here.

[ClementofRome]

...as you have all suggested time and again....I will just ask my priest.

The last 4 pages have totally confused me.

[repentant]

I know this is almost a taboo among Orthodox, but I have seen it before. But I must admit I was very taken aback :scratch:when I saw this (http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s02/f007.htm) from the site of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow.

What do you make of that Michael?
BTW, for those who can't read Russian it says "Logos" on the scroll in Christ's left hand.
Kolya


I just noticed something...are you sure this is from an Orthodox Church? Because the right hand of Christ is making the Western "peace sign" instead of the regular Orthodox IX XC with the crossed middle and index finger. And also the "Logos" is Greek, unless those letter's happened to be the same in Russian as well. I know some are, don't know if the Greek Lambda (L) and Gamma (G) are the same in Russian or not.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I just noticed something...are you sure this is from an Orthodox Church? Because the right hand of Christ is making the Western "peace sign" instead of the regular Orthodox IX XC with the crossed middle and index finger. And also the "Logos" is Greek, unless those letter's happened to be the same in Russian as well. I know some are, don't know if the Greek Lambda (L) and Gamma (G) are the same in Russian or not.

That is not a western peace sign, it is the way Old Believer's bless. Old believers bless with two fingers up and three in the palm.

[repentant]

That is not a western peace sign, it is the way Old Believer's bless. Old believers bless with two fingers up and three in the palm.

I didn't mean it as a peace sign, but that is what it looks like to me. This way is used in Catholic paintings of Christ and Saints. Also I have seen the Pope make it.

What do you mean by Old believers? You reffering to Old Calendar? Because of that is what you are saying, they do not bless like that...

Orthodox hand blessing...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/orthodoxblessing.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/geronda-ephraim.jpg

Catholic hand blessing (peace sign as I call it)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/cantstopmycrossova/pope2.jpg

[Michael the Iconographer]

I didn't mean it as a peace sign, but that is what it looks like to me. This way is used in Catholic paintings of Christ and Saints. Also I have seen the Pope make it.

What do you mean by Old believers? You reffering to Old Calendar? Because of that is what you are saying, they do not bless like that...

Orthodox hand blessing...



I know what an Orthodox hand blessing looks like. I write them quite often in icons. The Old Believers are the product of the Nikon schism in the 1600s. They bless as I described.

[Matrona]

I just noticed something...are you sure this is from an Orthodox Church? Because the right hand of Christ is making the Western "peace sign" instead of the regular Orthodox IX XC with the crossed middle and index finger. And also the "Logos" is Greek, unless those letter's happened to be the same in Russian as well.

Kolya posted an icon that came from Christ the Savior in Moscow, the church that was dynamited by the Soviets, who turned it into a swimming pool, and after the end of the Soviet era it was rebuilt. It's definitely an Orthodox church. Here's a nice photo gallery: http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/index.htm

I know some are, don't know if the Greek Lambda (L) and Gamma (G) are the same in Russian or not.

The corresponding letters are quite similar to each other.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I didn't mean it as a peace sign, but that is what it looks like to me. This way is used in Catholic paintings of Christ and Saints. Also I have seen the Pope make it.

What do you mean by Old believers? You reffering to Old Calendar? Because of that is what you are saying, they do not bless like that...

Old Believers = schismatic group from Russia

Separated from the main body of Orthodox over the issue of some ecclesiastical reform, one part of which addressed the correct mode of crossing oneself.

Hence, some icons still show the older Russian form of crossing, where the first two fingers make the shape of a cross (to greater or lesser degrees). The "peace sign" is the Old Believer cross, but very shallowly done.

[repentant]

I know what an Orthodox hand blessing looks like. I write them quite often in icons. The Old Believers are the product of the Nikon schism in the 1600s. They bless as I described.

So these Old believers you are reffering to are not Orthodox then? So maybe this "icon" isn't as well..never seen an Orthodox icon with that kind of hand blessing..

[Michael the Iconographer]

So these Old believers you are reffering to are not Orthodox then? So maybe this "icon" isn't as well..never seen an Orthodox icon with that kind of hand blessing..

I am careful in discussing the Old Believers. I would say what they produce is more an icon than much of what is produced by others and called icons.

[nutroll]

From what I understand, the term 'Old Believers' is in some ways like saying 'Protestant' where it covers a whole range of different groups. I was always under the impression that they were like the Orthodox Amish, meaning that they adhere to a stricter interpretation of the way Orthodox relate to the world. I read an article about them the other day on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers ), and I was surprised to see the differences between various Old Believer groups. Some would appear to be just a strict following of Orthodox beliefs, while others reject priests, and many of the sacraments.

[Akathist]

...as you have all suggested time and again....I will just ask my priest.

The last 4 pages have totally confused me.

somethings are often best left not understood.

Don't let these kind of things get to you. This is not about what Orthodoxy is. This is about differences that are important on some levels, but not important compared to the unity of our faith: the Traditions and Doctrines we have had for around 2000 years.

[buzuxi02]

Any depiction of God the Father or the Trinity is uncanonical, . During the iconoclastic controversy portrayals of the Father or the Trinity were never discussed since at that time they did not exist. Portraits of God the Father originated in the 11th century, since then councils have condemned them. Even the Icon of 3 angels at a table (Gen 18) made world popular by Andrei Rublev is more accurately called "Abrahams Hospitality" and is only considered a TYPE of the trinity. Many times though many mistaken the white bearded figure to be God the Father when it is Christ portrayed as the Ancient of Days.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Many times though many mistaken the white bearded figure to be God the Father when it is Christ portrayed as the Ancient of Days.

If the halo on the old man with white hair has a star of David or a triangle in it, it is God the Father. If the halo on the old man with with white hair has a cross in it, it is the Ancient of Days.

[ClementofRome]

But in the Book of Daniel, the Ancient of Days is God the Father and the Son of Man is Christ, no?

[Matrona]

Any depiction of God the Father or the Trinity is uncanonical, . During the iconoclastic controversy portrayals of the Father or the Trinity were never discussed since at that time they did not exist.

IIRC, II Nicaea did discuss attempts to portray the Divine Nature and why it shouldn't be done. I'm not messing with II Nicaea. :) I just don't think there's a big difference between the different ways of representing the Father symbolically within icons, whether it's as a blue half-circle, a spear, a pointing hand (hands are often attached to bodies!) or a little old man.

Portraits of God the Father originated in the 11th century, since then councils have condemned them.

Does that make them "heretical" as some on this thread have claimed?

If icons are theology in paint, then it has to be wrong to venerate a 'heretical' one. God is not a misleading god. We don't worship Loki.

I know several people here were privileged to venerate Our Lady of Sitka and be anointed with the oil from its vigil lamp. What exactly were you all venerating? Did you all just venerate the 'non-heretical' part? That oil was burning in front of the whole icon, not just the parts we find ourselves agreeing with. Does it make sense to hold that an icon depicts 'heresy' while relying on it to pass your veneration to the prototype?

Even the Icon of 3 angels at a table (Gen 18) made world popular by Andrei Rublev is more accurately called "Abrahams Hospitality" and is only considered a TYPE of the trinity. Many times though many mistaken the white bearded figure to be God the Father when it is Christ portrayed as the Ancient of Days.

That's true.

[choirfiend]

Sorry Matrona, I just don't agree and never will. The teaching is not what you're saying. Despite some iconographers, the Father is not to be depicted "No one has seen the Father." Our iconography is first and foremost ALWAYS about the incarnation, and God the Father is shown through Christ the Son, for having seen Him we have seen the Father. We have no incarnation of God the Father (without getting too drawn into a Trinitarian debate), and depicting such an image contradicts the reason we have iconography in the first place. No matter how much you like them, they're wrong.

[Melethiel]

BTW, for those who can't read Russian it says "Logos" on the scroll in Christ's left hand.

That's Greek. The Russian "S" looks different.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Sorry Matrona, I just don't agree and never will. The teaching is not what you're saying. Despite some iconographers, the Father is not to be depicted "No one has seen the Father." Our iconography is first and foremost ALWAYS about the incarnation, and God the Father is shown through Christ the Son, for having seen Him we have seen the Father. We have no incarnation of God the Father (without getting too drawn into a Trinitarian debate), and depicting such an image contradicts the reason we have iconography in the first place. No matter how much you like them, they're wrong.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to choirfiend again.


Very, very well said!

[Matrona]

Sorry Matrona, I just don't agree and never will.

That's fine. Whatever you want to believe is none of my nevermind. But I still have to question the intellectual honesty of venerating an icon one thinks is heretical. If anyone has a response to that, I would certainly like to hear about it.

The teaching is not what you're saying. Despite some iconographers, the Father is not to be depicted "No one has seen the Father." Our iconography is first and foremost ALWAYS about the incarnation, and God the Father is shown through Christ the Son, for having seen Him we have seen the Father. We have no incarnation of God the Father (without getting too drawn into a Trinitarian debate), and depicting such an image contradicts the reason we have iconography in the first place. No matter how much you like them, they're wrong.

I don't recall any point in scripture where God the Father represents Himself with a blue half-circle, either. Using a human symbol to represent Him might cause confusion with the Incarnate Word, obviously--as I mentioned several posts ago, that's why I'm glad icons with Him represented as a human figure in any shape aren't terribly common--but causing confusion is not heresy.

[Khaleas]

IIRC, II Nicaea did discuss attempts to portray the Divine Nature and why it shouldn't be done. I'm not messing with II Nicaea. :) I just don't think there's a big difference between the different ways of representing the Father symbolically within icons, whether it's as a blue half-circle, a spear, a pointing hand (hands are often attached to bodies!) or a little old man.


If you look at a blue half circle, a spear or a hand - Do you know what the person looks like?
Had I not posted a picture of myself here before and I just sent a picture of my hand to the board, you would not know what I looked like even though that hand is very much still attached to my body.

[Matrona]

While poking around, I found this article (http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm) by Vladimir Moss. I was especially pleased to read this passage:

The icon is a portrayal, not of the Divine Nature of the Father, but of His Divine Person. Moreover, it depicts Him, not realistically, but symbolically, not as He really is, in His Divine Nature, which is forever unattainable and undepictable, but only as He appeared to the prophet in a symbolic form or image for the sake of our understanding. The Son really became a man, so the depiction of the Son as a man in icons is a realistic depiction. The Father never became a man, so the depiction of Him as a man in icons is a symbolic, not a realistic depiction. In exactly the same way, the Holy Spirit never became a dove, so the depiction of Him as a dove in icons is not a realistic, but a symbolic depiction of Him, being a depiction of Him as He appeared in a symbolic form or image to St. John the Forerunner in the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan.

[Michael the Iconographer]

While poking around, I found this article (http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm) by Vladimir Moss. I was especially pleased to read this passage:

Considering I have not a clue who this person Vladimir is, what are his credentials and is he Orthodox? Being that we are now playing pick and choose what we believe? Well, Matrona, would you like to give me that information?

[nutroll]

I also read the article by Vladimir Moss, but he is not a canonical source. The Holy Spirit never became a dove or tongues of fire, but did appear as that. God the Father did not even appear in a form. At most we have instances where the feet or the back or some body part of the Father appeared, thus the hand of God in an icon, but God the Father was not seen. Moss also talks about the transfiguration of Christ, saying that if we can depict the uncreated light we can depict God the Father. The Biblical description speaks of the disciples having to look away with their physical eyes. We may be symbolizing the uncreated light of heaven, but we are making use of what the apostles actually saw, not just a symbol. I think Moss makes some interesting points, unfortunately he is wrong.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Where is the OTTODUCKS picture when I need it? Because that is what this Vladimir guy is. He is no expert on iconography!

[Michael the Iconographer]

I sense some pick and choosery going on in this thread. How sad.

[nutroll]

That's fine. Whatever you want to believe is none of my nevermind. But I still have to question the intellectual honesty of venerating an icon one thinks is heretical. If anyone has a response to that, I would certainly like to hear about it.


I can honestly say that I have never venerated an icon that I thought was heretical. I have venerated icons that I didn't think were done well, or in a proper style, but never one that was heretical. I have to say though that I can't think of a single icon that was both completely heretical and also miraculous. You spoke of the icon of Our Lady of Sitka, but that is an icon of Our Lady of Kazan with (unfortunately) God the Father above her. As I said before, I think miraculous icons are meant to be a witness to the church community. If a church has improper icons, I don't think God would refrain from blessing that community because of that. I don't think that we need to get rid of or destroy miraculous icons, but I do think that we should not paint that subject, and I think whenever possible, we should replace the improper images that are already there. What really bothers me is that the picture that started this all was painted recently. How can people live in Russia and see the beautiful icons that are still being produced today, and choose to put that in their Cathedral?

[Matrona]

I also read the article by Vladimir Moss, but he is not a canonical source.

That never stopped anyone from citing things like River of Fire. :)

The Holy Spirit never became a dove or tongues of fire, but did appear as that. God the Father did not even appear in a form. At most we have instances where the feet or the back or some body part of the Father appeared, thus the hand of God in an icon, but God the Father was not seen. Moss also talks about the transfiguration of Christ, saying that if we can depict the uncreated light we can depict God the Father. The Biblical description speaks of the disciples having to look away with their physical eyes. We may be symbolizing the uncreated light of heaven, but we are making use of what the apostles actually saw, not just a symbol. I think Moss makes some interesting points, unfortunately he is wrong.

How did the apostles see anything if they looked away? :)

[nutroll]

That never stopped anyone from citing things like River of Fire. :)

I've never even heard of River of Fire...



How did the apostles see anything if they looked away? :) They saw and it was too much, so then they looked away.

[Khaleas]

I don't now about everyone else, but one of the main rules of current research is not to believe everything one reads on the internet. Unless the source is verifiable and can be cross-referenced.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I don't now about everyone else, but one of the main rules of current research is not to believe everything one reads on the internet. Unless the source is verifiable and can be cross-referenced.

My profs in college never let us use web based information in research papers.

[Khaleas]

Considering I have not a clue who this person Vladimir is, what are his credentials and is he Orthodox? Being that we are now playing pick and choose what we believe? Well, Courtney, would you like to give me that information?

I second that, I've tried searching for his bio and can't find squat. Not even at the end of the articles he has posted as is normally custom.

[nutroll]

When I searched, I came across an article where he was being interviewed and he was talking about the canonical Orthodox as being heretical. I don't think he's ROCOR, I think he's something else. I'll see if I can find a link.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I second that, I've tried searching for his bio and can't find squat. Not even at the end of the articles he has posted as is normally custom.

Yes, anyone with ANY credentials in a matter will give their bio for readers reference at the end of such an essay. If you are hiding your bio, it means you have something to hide. Perhaps he is hiding his lack of knowledge in this subject?

[Khaleas]

When I searched, I came across an article where he was being interviewed and he was talking about the canonical Orthodox as being heretical. I don't think he's ROCOR, I think he's something else. I'll see if I can find a link.

Thanks!

[Michael the Iconographer]

When I searched, I came across an article where he was being interviewed and he was talking about the canonical Orthodox as being heretical. I don't think he's ROCOR, I think he's something else. I'll see if I can find a link.

If he is not canonical Orthodox, does that mean he is schismatic? Or perhaps even a furry parasite?

[nutroll]

This is the article I read about him the other day:

http://www.romanitas.ru/Actual/mossinteng.htm

and this is an OrthoWiki article about the church he belongs to:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Autonomous_Church
(http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Autonomous_Church)

[Matrona]

If you look at a blue half circle, a spear or a hand - Do you know what the person looks like?
Had I not posted a picture of myself here before and I just sent a picture of my hand to the board, you would not know what I looked like even though that hand is very much still attached to my body.

No, but God the Father never represents Himself as a spear or a blue half-circle in Scripture. How can it be okay to represent Him that way and not as a symbolic human father?

I don't now about everyone else, but one of the main rules of current research is not to believe everything one reads on the internet. Unless the source is verifiable and can be cross-referenced.

Thank you for that reminder. I do my best to follow the established standards of research when writing papers for school. However, similar standards are not in place for conversational message boards, and I wanted to make sure everyone knew that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I second that, I've tried searching for his bio and can't find squat. Not even at the end of the articles he has posted as is normally custom.

Here's something I found:

Vladimir Moss, the author of this review, was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but is now a member of the Free Russian Orthodox Church under the omophorion of Archbishop Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir.

At any rate, the truth has nothing to fear from lies. Even if this guy is a member of the sect of that Glamour Shots patriarch, using an ad hominem argument would be bad debating form and leave his arguments unaddressed.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The Catacomb Church had no communication with the Moscow Patriarchate. The clergy of the Soviet Church, upon the orders of the GPU, often tracked down catacomb priests, activists, and even mere laymen, and delivered them up to the state security organs, for imprisonment and death.

So Matrona, you would rather believe is schismatic and possible heretic than what a studied and credentialed Orthodox Iconographer has to say on the subject?

[Khaleas]

Thank you for that reminder. I do my best to follow the established standards of research when writing papers for school. However, similar standards are not in place for conversational message boards, and I wanted to make sure everyone knew that I'm not the only one who feels this way.


To a point, but I can write an article and sign it with Cuckoo Jones, upload it online, and post it here. It still doesn't make it right.

[Michael the Iconographer]

To a point, but I can write an article and sign it with Cuckoo Jones, upload it online, and post it here. It still doesn't make it right.

Can you please do that just for the comedic value of it?

[Matrona]

To a point, but I can write an article and sign it with Cuckoo Jones, upload it online, and post it here. It still doesn't make it right.

True, but that doesn't make it wrong, either, and a very sensible reaction to Cuckoo Jones's article is read it and consider its arguments, refuting them on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand.

[Michael the Iconographer]

True, but that doesn't make it wrong, either, but a very sensible reaction to Cuckoo Jones's article is read it and consider its arguments, refuting them on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand.

I will listen to wha the has to say when he cites his credentials. Reading some of the other things he has written, he sets himself to be way outside of mainline Orthodoxy as it is. So why should I believe he is going to be Orthodox on this subject? So far he has proved that he is not one to take as an expert on any matter of Orthodoxy.

[Matrona]

I can honestly say that I have never venerated an icon that I thought was heretical. I have venerated icons that I didn't think were done well, or in a proper style, but never one that was heretical. I have to say though that I can't think of a single icon that was both completely heretical and also miraculous. You spoke of the icon of Our Lady of Sitka, but that is an icon of Our Lady of Kazan with (unfortunately) God the Father above her.

"Completely heretical"? I thought heresy was like pregnancy, you can't have a little of either. :)

If a church has improper icons, I don't think God would refrain from blessing that community because of that.

Of course not, I agree absolutely. But there are plenty of icons that have no canonical problems whatsoever that are not miraculous.

How can people live in Russia and see the beautiful icons that are still being produced today, and choose to put that in their Cathedral?

I suppose different people have different tastes. :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

This is beginning to look like one of those situations where no matter how much fact you present a person with, they refuse to believe the truth.

[buzuxi02]

I am surprised that there is even controversy on whether depicting God the Fatheris canonical. This is settled based upon scripture, the writing of the church fathers and many councils.

"Who is able to make an image of the invisible, bodiless, uncircumscribable formless God? It is therefore the extreme of madness and and impiety to make a form of the divine! -John Damascus

if the Son had not become manifest, " Like the Father then, he could not be painted" - St Theodore the studite(questions on iconomachs)

Seventh Ecumenical council condemned the forceful removal of Images of Jesus, His Mother and the Saints but pronounced no condemnation of the forceful removal of depictions of the Father. This council did NOT include such images in their list of categories as to what was appropriate subjects for icons.

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1776 "We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the trinity, a recent invention ,is alien and unacceptable to the apostolic and catholic orthodox churches. It was transmitted to the Orthodox from the Latins"

GREAT COUNCIL OF MOSCOW 1666- In attendance were patriarchs from alexandria, antioch and moscow, and bishops from jerusalem, the sinai, greece ,bulgaria etc (canons 51-52)

Many images of a white bearded man with a baby Christ in his Bossom and a dove encircled in the center is Mistakenly taken to be an icon of the Holy Trinity. But it actually represents the Economy of Jesus: "the Eternal Word of the Father, the ancient of days who becomes a child for me" (3rd kathisma of matins feast of the meeting of the Lord in the Temple). This is proved by the 13th century fresco in the church of Panagia Koumbelidiki Kastoria Greece, which not only has a cross in the nimbus of the Ancient of Days but further verified by the inscription!

[Michael the Iconographer]

There is really no controversy, there is simply one person who says they are Orthodox but refuses to follow the teaching of the Church on this matter. It is as simple as that.

[buzuxi02]

Michael i agree with you. Even the liturgical phrase, "O Christ we know no other God but thee " condemns depictions of the Father

[Matrona]

I am surprised that there is even controversy on whether depicting God the Fatheris canonical. This is settled based upon scripture, the writing of the church fathers and many councils.

Perhaps you should consider reading the Moss article (http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm) on the subject. It addresses many of the issues you bring up.

"Who is able to make an image of the invisible, bodiless, uncircumscribable formless God? It is therefore the extreme of madness and and impiety to make a form of the divine! -John Damascus

How does this not apply to images of the blue half-circle?

if the Son had not become manifest, " Like the Father then, he could not be painted" - St Theodore the studite(questions on iconomachs)

This does not address symbols.

Seventh Ecumenical council condemned the forceful removal of Images of Jesus, His Mother and the Saints but pronounced no condemnation of the forceful removal of depictions of the Father. This council did NOT include such images in their list of categories as to what was appropriate subjects for icons.

Where may I read that list?

Many images of a white bearded man with a baby Christ in his Bossom and a dove encircled in the center is Mistakenly taken to be an icon of the Holy Trinity. But it actually represents the Economy of Jesus: "the Eternal Word of the Father, the ancient of days who becomes a child for me" (3rd kathisma of matins feast of the meeting of the Lord in the Temple).

What does the dove represent, then, according to this interpretation?

This is proved by the 13th century fresco in the church of Panagia Koumbelidiki Kastoria Greece, which not only has a cross in the nimbus of the Ancient of Days but further verified by the inscription!

I was fortunate enough to stumble across this website (http://www.holytrinityraleigh.org/photo%20tour/Photo%20Tour.htm) which shows a Holy Trinity icon, and the Father has a cruciform halo (with the Greek letters for "He Who Is"), not a triangle. The top of the icon reads "Holy Trinity" in Greek.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I was fortunate enough to stumble across this website (http://www.holytrinityraleigh.org/photo%20tour/Photo%20Tour.htm) which shows a Holy Trinity icon, and the Father has a cruciform halo (with the Greek letters for "He Who Is"), not a triangle. The top of the icon reads "Holy Trinity" in Greek.

ALL Cruciform halos represent Christ. There are NO exceptions to that rule.

[buzuxi02]

Matrona if either of those icons is labeled as Holy Trinity ,they are simply mislabeled. Probably because the name of the church is Holy Trinity. In fact you should write an email to the church about those icons and they will explain to you the very same thing we have been explaining to you. In fact if you could get into contact with the iconographer of that icon he would tell you the same thing. Again in greece there are many ancient icons of these varieties and are inscribed with Jesus Christ, ancient of days.

[Matrona]

Matrona if either of those icons is labeled as Holy Trinity ,they are simply mislabeled. Probably because the name of the church is Holy Trinity.

http://www.holytrinityraleigh.org/images/trinity%20icon2.jpg

Apologies for the remote link, but this is about as clear as I can get it.

I don't think it's possible for this icon to be a mislabeled "Ancient of Days"--the "two Christs" would lend itself easily to a Nestorian interpretation, and the presence of the dove wouldn't make any sense.

In fact if you could get into contact with the iconographer of that icon he would tell you the same thing.

The same iconographer who accidentally labeled his or her icon "Holy Trinity" instead of "Jesus Christ, Ancient of Days"? :)

[buzuxi02]

Matrona simply contact the parish and they will tell you. truth is a dove should only be used in an icon of the baptism. there is only one icon of the trinity allowed and that is a "type" of the trinity. This icon many times is also called the holy trinity but this is false as well. the icon of the 3 angels from genesis 18.1-8 is called "abrahams hospitality"

[Matrona]

truth is a dove should only be used in an icon of the baptism. there is only one icon of the trinity allowed and that is a "type" of the trinity. This icon many times is also called the holy trinity but this is false as well. the icon of the 3 angels from genesis 18.1-8 is called "abrahams hospitality"

I'm aware of all of this, but thank you for repeating it for the sake of lurkers. :)

All else aside, it should be clear that the icon above is at least an attempt at an icon of the Holy Trinity; it can't possibly be the Ancient of Days for the reasons I listed above.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm aware of all of this, but thank you for repeating it for the sake of lurkers. :)

All else aside, it should be clear that the icon above is at least an attempt at an icon of the Holy Trinity; it can't possibly be the Ancient of Days for the reasons I listed above.

This is an attempt at a Trinity icon, however, not only is the icon non-canonical, the iconographer made a mistake. This painting is often referred to as the "New Testament Trinity." However, that being said, the person who created this painting clearly made a mistake in giving the old man a cruciform halo. Only Christ wears a cruciform halo, the old man does not. If the old man wears a cruciform halo, he is the Ancient of Days, if he wears a star of David in his halo or a Triangle he is God the Father. This is an unbreakable rule of iconography. Thus what we have here is a comedy of errors. The painting is non-canonical and heretical and the person who painted it clearly made a huge mistake in it as well. This thread is getting funnier and funnier as we go along.

[Matrona]

Since this thread has been quiet since last night, I would like to register my astonishment that no one has addressed the Moss article point by point instead of dismissing it outright. Even I don't agree with everything he says--"righteous Patriarch Nikon", my donkey, and the fact that Moss criticizes Patriarch Sophronios II on similar grounds to the ones used here against Moss himself. But if one can't argue against his case, the sensible thing to do would be to excuse oneself from the discussion, not deliver a one-liner and turn one's back.

Either the symbol of our Father at the top of the Kursk Root Icon, Our Lady of Sitka, and the Reigning Mother of God is heretical, or it isn't. How can one venerate an image one honestly believes is heretical without undermining the place icons have in our lives and worship? Icons are supposed to be theology in paint, so venerating a heretical icon should be like confessing a heretical creed. You can't have something that's "partly heretical"--is using the Creed plus the filioque only partly wrong? Did we let the others add to the Creed and just "interpret" it our way? If I can pick what I like in an icon and venerate that particular element while ignoring what I don't like, then I would be treating icons as if they were naught but pretty pictures used to decorate our churches, and a theology that I could interpret to my personal liking.

By the way, nutroll, this is River of Fire (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm).

[Michael the Iconographer]

Matrona, I have no need or time to dismiss an article written by someone who is not Orthodox point by point. The councils and fathers speak for themselves. If you refuse to listen to the sound teaching of the Orthodox Church, that is your issue. I, as a studied Orthodox Iconographer, know the truth and am bound to live by it in my work and in my worship.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Since this thread has been quiet since last night, I would like to register my astonishment that no one has addressed the Moss article point by point instead of dismissing it outright. Even I don't agree with everything he says--"righteous Patriarch Nikon", my donkey, and the fact that Moss criticizes Patriarch Sophronios II on similar grounds to the ones used here against Moss himself. But if one can't argue against his case, the sensible thing to do would be to excuse oneself from the discussion, not deliver a one-liner and turn one's back.
I emphatically disagree with you, Matrona, regarding your position on depicting God the Father in icons.

However, I am not going to address the Moss article point by point. If he is a member of ROAC, and if he is under the omophorion of Archbishop Valentine of the Catacomb Church etc. etc. [same thing]... then you have your hands on poison that I wouldn't touch for money or power.

The darkest period of my life was brought about through the seductive arguments of these schismatics... where I, like Eve, listened. I ended up falling out of communion with my Church... and ultimately - separated from the life-giving and soul-healing Body and Blood of Christ - I had a total nervous breakdown.

This was a few years ago, and all praise be to God, I have been reunited (much chastened and made wiser) to the Church... But I haven't forgotten, and so I must put out a strong, emphatic warning to my Orthodox brethren of TAW to stay away. This is poison. Do not touch.

Respectfully,
But with great concern,
Vasya.

[buzuxi02]

I Have No Idea Who Moss Is Or Whatever Article He Wrote

[Matrona]

I emphatically disagree with you, Matrona, regarding your position on depicting God the Father in icons.

However, I am not going to address the Moss article point by point. If he is a member of ROAC, and if he is under the omophorion of Archbishop Valentine of the Catacomb Church etc. etc. [same thing]... then you have your hands on poison that I wouldn't touch for money or power.

The guy's membership in a schismatic group is beside the point. I happen to think he makes a reasonable argument in this particular case. Canonical Orthodox can agree with this particular position, like I do, but we would obviously have a problem with arguments he might make on ecclesiology. If a schismatic wackjob wrote a treatise on how Orthodox ought to be against abortion that you happened to agree with, would you support abortion just to spite him?

And his being a schismatic doesn't explain why nobody is answering mine. I'm obviously not schismatic, I'm Antiochian, and I've been known to go upside the head of anyone who impugns the Antiochians' canonicity! :P

I Have No Idea Who Moss Is Or Whatever Article He Wrote

Same one I posted in #82.

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm

[Michael the Iconographer]

Let us remember that the word heterodox translates as "mixed in teaching." This is what results when we do not follow the teaching of Orthodox Church in fullness.

[Ioan cel Nou]

Let us remember that the word heterodox translates as "mixed in teaching." This is what results when we do not follow the teaching of Orthodox Church in fullness.

I thought heterodox translated as other (i.e. not correct) belief/worship. Am I misinformed? I admit to not having much of a grasp on Greek.

James

[Michael the Iconographer]

I thought heterodox translated as other (i.e. not correct) belief/worship. Am I misinformed? I admit to not having much of a grasp on Greek.

James

Both of those translations of the word heterodox mean the same thing. My point is those who pick and choose what they believe in order to justify their positions stand on very shaky ground.

[Ioan cel Nou]

Both of those translations of the word heterodox mean the same thing. My point is those who pick and choose what they believe in order to justify their positions stand on very shaky ground.

You have no argument from me on the point you were making, I was merely asking for clarification on the translation of heterodox. It doesn't seem to me that mixed and other are the same. Mixed would mean (to me, I hasten to add) partly right and partly wrong. Other, by being opposed to correct, would imply simply wrong. Now I can see how a church that has a body of heterodox teachings and hence is called heterodox can be partly right and partly wrong, but I fail to see how an individual teaching can be partly anything. It is either right, and hence Orthodox, or wrong, and hence heterodox. Do you see why I asked about the translation now?

James

[Matrona]

I fail to see how an individual teaching can be partly anything. It is either right, and hence Orthodox, or wrong, and hence heterodox.

However inadvertently, you seem to have grasped my point exactly. :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

You have no argument from me on the point you were making, I was merely asking for clarification on the translation of heterodox. It doesn't seem to me that mixed and other are the same. Mixed would mean (to me, I hasten to add) partly right and partly wrong. Other, by being opposed to correct, would imply simply wrong. Now I can see how a church that has a body of heterodox teachings and hence is called heterodox can be partly right and partly wrong, but I fail to see how an individual teaching can be partly anything. It is either right, and hence Orthodox, or wrong, and hence heterodox. Do you see why I asked about the translation now?

James

I see your point. The fact of the matter is the Councils and the Fathers have been very clear on this matter and the person who is arguing for the paintings of the Father has yet to offer one valid reason citing Orthodox doctrine for these paintings. The fact of the matter is, these paintings of God the Father are completely in error and thus heterodox. Further, atleast one local council and an Ecumenical Council has declared anathema on said paintings.