unofficial icons

[jckstraw72]

hey ya'll i have a question about icons of ppl who have not been glorified by the Church officially.

1. is it appropriate to have a halo of osme such person, as long as it doesnt say "Saint"
2. would it be ok to venerate such an "icon"?

i asked this on Orthodoxcircle.com and someone said he had two icons of Fr. Seraphim, 1 with a halo and 1 without and that he venerates both, and that his priest also has hte icon with the halo.

Thanks.

[Akathist]

Ask your Priest about this. We can't advise you about what is right or not right about what to venerate or not.

[Dust and Ashes]

The OCA parish in Memphis, TN has an icon of Fr. Seraphim Rose (w/o halo) in the nave.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It is okay to have an icon of someone not yet glorified if they 1. do not have a halo and 2. do not have the title saint on the icon. To put either on the icon prior to the person being glorified by the Orthodox church is an act of disobedience to the church, and is thus pride. My Church had an icon of St. Raphael of Brooklyn long before he was a saint, but 1. he did not have a halo and 2. his title was "Bishop Raphael". When he was glorified the person who wrote the icon inscribed a halo on the icon and gave him the proper title of Saint. To go about the process any other way is an act of disobedience to the Church.

[jckstraw72]

are there canons about this stuff, or is it just kind of an understood thing?

[choirfiend]

would you be more willing to listen to one or the other?

[Dust and Ashes]

Are there any set criteria about whether or not an icon can be written of someone who is Orthodox? I mean what if someone commissions an icon of a beloved priest who is reposed?

[jckstraw72]

im just wondering....

[choirfiend]

I mean that seriously....Do you find yourself leaning to one or the other option as more preferable or more acceptable to you?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Are there any set criteria about whether or not an icon can be written of someone who is Orthodox? I mean what if someone commissions an icon of a beloved priest who is reposed?
As I have stated time and again, if someone commissioned an icon of a beloved priest who is reposed, I would be able to write the icon without the title of saint or a halo. Only once the Church glorified the person would they recieve a halo and the title saint.

[Orthocat]

I believe this also holds true for the RC. Before becoming a saint they will be called "Blessed" or somesuch...
Although their idea of icons are not quite the same as ours...

[Dust and Ashes]

As I have stated time and again, if someone commissioned an icon of a beloved priest who is reposed, I would be able to write the icon without the title of saint or a halo. Only once the Church glorified the person would they recieve a halo and the title saint.

Cool, thanks. :thumbsup: Would the same apply to any other reposed person, as long as they were Orthodox?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Cool, thanks. :thumbsup: Would the same apply to any other reposed person, as long as they were Orthodox?
Yes. A friend of mine who is a very highly respected iconographer wrote an icon of a friend of his named Mary. He titled the icon "The Ever Memorable Mary," and did not give her a halo.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I believe this also holds true for the RC. Before becoming a saint they will be called "Blessed" or somesuch...
Although their idea of icons are not quite the same as ours...
Roman Catholicism and sainthood and how Roman Catholics make people a saint vs. how Orthodox make people a saint is a totally different subject.

[repentant]

There have been Saints in the past who have written icons of other Saints, before they were officially glorified. The first icon of St. Nektarios of Aegina was written by St. Savvas the New of Kalymnos, a few years after the repose of St. Nektarios, while St. Savvas was still at the convent founded bt St. Nekatarios. These two Saints new each other in person, and St. Savvas, being the Saint he was, and having Spiritual insight new that St. Nektarios was a Saint. After writing it, he gave it to a nun to put the icon in the Narthex of the Church. She said she couldn't do it because St. Nekatrios had not yet been glorified, and she was afraid the convent would get in trouble. He told her "You must show obedience. Take the icon and place it on the icon stand, and do not scrutinize the will of God."

Would you say St. Savvas was prideful and disobedient to the Church?

[Michael the Iconographer]

There have been Saints in the past who have written icons of other Saints, before they were officially glorified. The first icon of St. Nektarios of Aegina was written by St. Savvas the New of Kalymnos, a few years after the repose of St. Nektarios, while St. Savvas was still at the convent founded bt St. Nekatarios. These two Saints new each other in person, and St. Savvas, being the Saint he was, and having Spiritual insight new that St. Nektarios was a Saint. After writing it, he gave it to a nun to put the icon in the Narthex of the Church. She said she couldn't do it because St. Nekatrios had not yet been glorified, and she was afraid the convent would get in trouble. He told her "You must show obedience. Take the icon and place it on the icon stand, and do not scrutinize the will of God."

Would you say St. Savvas was prideful and disobedient to the Church?
Not knowing the situation and having not studied it, I will not comment on it. I will say the church has made it clear how to handle icons being written of saints. If you feel you are one who is able to circumvent the protocol the church has set, so be it. But I will be obedient to the Orthodox Church.

[repentant]

Not knowing the situation and having not studied it, I will not comment on it. I will say the church has made it clear how to handle icons being written of saints. If you feel you are one who is able to circumvent the protocol the church has set, so be it. But I will be obedient to the Orthodox Church.

I never said I was the one to do anything. You made a broad statement that writing icons of non-glorified people was prideful and disobedient to the Church. I pointed out a situation and asked you a question about it. You have said many times what the Church's stance is on icons, and the writing of them, I have asked you to show these canons, and have even searched myself for them and have come up empty. Just like a while ago you made the claim that icons are not icons if they are a copy or on paper, and must be paint and wood. I asked you to show me where this is true, and you failed to prove your point there as well. As an iconographer, these things should be easily accesible to you.

But anyways, my point was, just like many claim that canons are not meant to be held with an iron fist, this includes icons as well. Ekonomia can be shown in this case to.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I never said I was the one to do anything. You made a broad statement that writing icons of non-glorified people was prideful and disobedient to the Church. I pointed out a situation and asked you a question about it. You have said many times what the Church's stance is on icons, and the writing of them, I have asked you to show these canons, and have even searched myself for them and have come up empty. Just like a while ago you made the claim that icons are not icons if they are a copy or on paper, and must be paint and wood. I asked you to show me where this is true, and you failed to prove your point there as well. As an iconographer, these things should be easily accesible to you.

But anyways, my point was, just like many claim that canons are not meant to be held with an iron fist, this includes icons as well. Ekonomia can be shown in this case to.
Ekonomia can only be granted by a priest or bishop.

[repentant]

Ekonomia can only be granted by a priest or bishop.

And St. Savvas was a Priest....


But could you answer the question? Was he wrong?

[Michael the Iconographer]

And St. Savvas was a Priest....


But could you answer the question? Was he wrong?
If he is a priest, he is free to apply economia as he sees the need. An Orthodox lay person is NOT free to apply economia and just decide to have an icon of someone who has yet to be glorified by the Church.

[repentant]

If he is a priest, he is free to apply economia as he sees the need. An Orthodox lay person is NOT free to apply economia and just decide to have an icon of someone who has yet to be glorified by the Church.

I never said otherwise..

I am only replying to your broad statement that writing an icon of a non glorified person is prideful and disobedient to the Church. I showed you a situation, and asked you about it, which you have answered here.

But I have yet to see any facts regarding your stance.

And St. Savvas was a Priest, he is a Saint now. Well I guess he still is a Priest in heavenly worship.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I never said otherwise..

I am only replying to your broad statement that writing an icon of a non glorified person is prideful and disobedient to the Church. I showed you a situation, and asked you about it, which you have answered here.

But I have yet to see any facts regarding your stance.

And St. Savvas was a Priest, he is a Saint now. Well I guess he still is a Priest in heavenly worship.
You know, I don't have to answer to your inquisition. I have studied iconography for over 10 years, have written countless icons, have had a number of my works on iconography published, and have taught a college level class on iconography. My credentials in the matter are out there for everyone to see. I am able to make rather broad statements about such matters because I am studied and educated enough on the matters to know that in the VAST majority of circumstances they are true. There may be one or two minor exceptions to the rule, but generally they are true. You have failed to show me any reason why you are able to make such an inquisition.

[repentant]

You know, I don't have to answer to your inquisition. I have studied iconography for over 10 years, have written countless icons, have had a number of my works on iconography published, and have taught a college level class on iconography. My credentials in the matter are out there for everyone to see. I am able to make rather broad statements about such matters because I am studied and educated enough on the matters to know that in the VAST majority of circumstances they are true. There may be one or two minor exceptions to the rule, but generally they are true. You have failed to show me any reason why you are able to make such an inquisition.

Burden of proof does not fall to the defense...

Michael, no disrespect, but I know nothing of you besides your name on here, as you do me. With all your experience and credentials, it should not be such a task for you to produce proof of what you claim. Instead you claim you don't have to answer because of your credentials, then push it on me to prove my side. I shouldn't have to, I am not the one making any claims. You make a claim, burden of proof is on you. I have proved points in the past with proof, and this is 2nd time now that I know of where you have been asked (by me) to show the proof for what you say. You have yet to do it, and like last time, avoid the question all together. Your credebility to me is dwindling. You are a very good iconographer from the icons I have seen pictures of, I am not denying that. But you should be able to back up what you say with some documented proof. If you show this proof, then I will concede and apologize. But what I know is that St. Savvas was a very knowledgable and qualified iconographer, and wrote an icon of a non glorified person. So your broad statement that doing so is "prideful and disobedient to the Church" is nonsense. The man is a Saint, I don't think you are, yet at least.

[jckstraw72]

dang gina we need some calm down action up in here

[Protoevangel]

... But what I know is that St. Savvas was a very knowledgable and qualified iconographer, and wrote an icon of a non glorified person. So your broad statement that doing so is "prideful and disobedient to the Church" is nonsense. ...
I am not entirely sure, but I think this may be the result of a slight misunderstanding. I don't think Michael said what you seem to think he said.

It is okay to have an icon of someone not yet glorified if they 1. do not have a halo and 2. do not have the title saint on the icon.
So perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of the discussion, but what I see is two people making good, valid points, with nothing to disagree about.

If I have misunderstood, or have offended in any way, please forgive me.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I am not entirely sure, but I think this may be the result of a slight misunderstanding. I don't think Michael said what you seem to think he said.


So perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of the discussion, but what I see is two people making good, valid points, with nothing to disagree about.

If I have misunderstood, or have offended in any way, please forgive me.
What you saw was someone beng very argumentative, with very little basis to stand on.

[repentant]

What you saw was someone beng very argumentative, with very little basis to stand on.

Michael, please. I made a statement that what you say is nonsense. You make claims, and never show anything to back it up. So who doesn't have the basis to stand on? I gave you an example of a man who was a Saint, that wrote an icon of a non glorified person. This was to refute your claim that doing so is "prideful and disobedient to the Church". So until you can prove that it is, you have no basis to stand on...all I ask is for you to prove what you say, and you haven't yet, for the second time..

[Dust and Ashes]

But I thought Michael said he would write an icon of someone who hasn't been glorified by the Church, he just wouldn't include a halo or put the word "Saint" on the icon. Perhaps he was saying that to write an icon calling someone a Saint who has not been glorified would be prideful?

[ufonium2]

So first Michael said:

It is okay to have an icon of someone not yet glorified if they 1. do not have a halo and 2. do not have the title saint on the icon.To put either on the icon prior to the person being glorified by the Orthodox church is an act of disobedience to the church, and is thus pride. Emphasis mine.

Then he said:
As I have stated time and again, if someone commissioned an icon of a beloved priest who is reposed, I would be able to write the icon without the title of saint or a halo.

offered an example:

Yes. A friend of mine who is a very highly respected iconographer wrote an icon of a friend of his named Mary. He titled the icon "The Ever Memorable Mary," and did not give her a halo.

Then repentant somehow turned what Michael said into this:

You made a broad statement that writing icons of non-glorified people was prideful and disobedient to the Church. .
and then repeated himself saying:
I never said otherwise..
I am only replying to your broad statement that writing an icon of a non glorified person is prideful and disobedient to the Church.

But Michael never said what you are accusing him of saying. In fact, he said the opposite. He said he would write an icon of a non-glorified person as long as they didn't have a halo or the title "saint." How you got "icons of non-glorified people are wrong" out of what he said is beyond me.

[Protoevangel]

Michael, please. I made a statement that what you say is nonsense. You make claims, and never show anything to back it up. So who doesn't have the basis to stand on? I gave you an example of a man who was a Saint, that wrote an icon of a non glorified person. This was to refute your claim that doing so is "prideful and disobedient to the Church". So until you can prove that it is, you have no basis to stand on...all I ask is for you to prove what you say, and you haven't yet, for the second time..
Repentant,


I have not seen Michael make this claim you continue to say he has made. Can you please show me where he has said that one cannot, or should not write an icon of a non glorified person, please?


Thank you,
Dan

[repentant]

Repentant,


I have not seen Michael make this claim you continue to say he has made. Can you please show me where he has said that one cannot, or should not write an icon of a non glorified person, please?


Thank you,
Dan

Read the first page, post #4

Michael said:
It is okay to have an icon of someone not yet glorified if they 1. do not have a halo and 2. do not have the title saint on the icon. To put either on the icon prior to the person being glorified by the Orthodox church is an act of disobedience to the church, and is thus pride. My Church had an icon of St. Raphael of Brooklyn long before he was a saint, but 1. he did not have a halo and 2. his title was "Bishop Raphael". When he was glorified the person who wrote the icon inscribed a halo on the icon and gave him the proper title of Saint. To go about the process any other way is an act of disobedience to the Church.

I know he said that you can write one if a halo is not added, or the word Saint is not added, but I made a case otherwise of a Saint doing it. The icon St. Savva wrote of St. Nektarios included the word Saint, and had a halo. I asked him if he thinks St. Savva was prideful and disobedient to the Church. I also pointed out that what he said above (which I bolded) was inappropriate and too broad of a judgement. Just like any canon, an icon canon can be given ekonomia. I also asked him to produce evidence on what he claims. He has yet to do it now, for the second time, on a second topic, he claims to have alot of "credentials" in...

Please read the whole part before you chime in. Or is it that everyone must defend Micael..?

[Protoevangel]

The icon St. Savva wrote of St. Nektarios included the word Saint, and had a halo.
Until now, you have never said this.

You made a broad statement that writing icons of non-glorified people was prideful and disobedient to the Church.
This was your claim against Michael. No mention of halos or titles... Just "icons of non-glorified people". If there was some "secret gnosis" I should have been familiar with before asking my question, please pardon my ignorance.

Just like any canon, an icon canon can be given ekonomia. If he is a priest, he is free to apply economia as he sees the need.
And he agreed with you on this... Or so it looks to me. Or, does the Orthodox layperson commonly have the authority to apply economea on pretty much any canon he or she choses, at any time? Once again, if I am being ignorant, please accept my apology.

Or is it that everyone must defend Micael..?
:) No, I'm not "defending Michael", but simply wondering why you are attacking a brother over a matter he offered no disagreement on.

Once again, please forgive me if I have misunderstood or offended.

[repentant]

Until now, you have never said this. .

Well forgive me, for not stating that. This is what I was talking about. I also gave a little part of the story in which the nun St. Savva gave the icon to, did not want to put it on the icon stand, out of fear the convent would get in trouble. Also, Michael knew I meant an official halo/Saint icon, otherwise he would have stated that it was ok (the icon of St. Nektarios) if these items were missing.


This was your claim against Michael. No mention of halos or titles... Just "icons of non-glorified people". If there was some "secret gnosis" I should have been familiar with before asking my question, please pardon my ignorance..

Read above.


And he agreed with you on this... Or so it looks to me. Or, does the Orthodox layperson commonly have the authority to apply economea on pretty much any canon he or she choses, at any time? Once again, if I am being ignorant, please accept my apology..

Yes he did as St. Savva was a Priest, and a living Saint. And this has nothing to do with lay people. Lay people writing icons was never mentioned by me.


:) No, I'm not "defending Michael", but simply wondering why you are attacking a brother over a matter he offered no disagreement on..

The disagreement was his broad statement of saying that writing an icon of a non glorified person with a halo and Saint title was prideful and disobedient to the Church. I gave him a scenerio in which it was done, by a Saint, who was also well versed in iconography and it's canons. I asked him, based on what he said, if he thought St. Savva was prideful and disobedient to the Church. My only disagreement was his broad generalization.

Not to mention I asked him to provide the canons he quotes, in which he hasn't, but challenged me to prove my point. I did. I gave a Saint who did what Michael claims is wrong. This is the second time pertaining to something with icons that Michael has failed to prove his case.

Once again, please forgive me if I have misunderstood or offended.

No need to ask.

[choirfiend]

If what St. Sava did was God's will, then it wasn't disobedient to the CHurch, which is His Body. But, unless you are a saint, you probably dont have any business doing anything of the sort b/c it would be prideful and indisobedience. RARE and EXTRAORDINARY circumstances aside (like saints) his statement stands. PLEASE dont get hung up on a useful generalization just because there was ONE exception to the rule. This has NOTHING to do with accepting claims of credentials/authority, and more with logic, civility, and acceptable norms in presenting arguments.

[repentant]

If what St. Sava did was God's will, then it wasn't disobedient to the CHurch, which is His Body. But, unless you are a saint, you probably dont have any business doing anything of the sort b/c it would be prideful and indisobedience. RARE and EXTRAORDINARY circumstances aside (like saints) his statement stands. PLEASE dont get hung up on a useful generalization just because there was ONE exception to the rule. This has NOTHING to do with accepting claims of credentials/authority, and more with logic, civility, and acceptable norms in presenting arguments.

No Canons are not meant to be withheld with an iron fist. I have heard you and other's say this numerous times, so what's different now? He made a broad statement that it was prideful and disobedient to the Church to do this, he didn't say exept for certain circumstances. Plus as far as I know, on what he has shown at least, is that what he says is pretty much that, what he says. He still hasn't shown anything on the topic to prove his point.

And as far as St. Savva doing God's will, that is the truth...but I never said that lay people should go around writing icons of whoever they feel like. So why do people keep saying this?

All I did was show an exemption to his broad generalization that's it.

And btw, St. Savva was not the only person to do this...

[Akathist]

I think it is time to get back to the topic.

I myself would be uncomfortable venerating an icon that was not fully recognized by the Church.

However, I have and will kiss photos of my family when I feel the need to. So far, no lightening has struck me.

I suspect that in the bigger picture such things probably don't matter much, except that those people who are iconographers are supposed to follow the rules they are taught.

Since I am not nor ever plan to be an iconographer, I have not paid attention to those rules. I only know that the icons at my parish (except one) are all openly venerated by everyone.

The one that is not, is an old one that has an image of God as an old man in it and most of the parish do not like the icon so it is in the corner of the basement fellowship hall. It can be venerated but is not typically.