Coptic VS Greek Icons

[AJB4]

OK, not really a 'which one's better than the other?' kind of thing, but which style do you more prefer. I prefer the more cartoonish style of the Coptic icons more. Even though I'd probably be Greek Orthodox, not Coptic, I'd still prefer to utilize their icon styles, especially in my prayer-shrines.:crosseo:.

[Dewi Sant]

Icons are not works of art in the typical sense, they are rather essays for the illiterate.
In an icon there is much symbolism and explaination without words.
Take for example an icon of Christ Pantocrator.

I'll use an icon of my own as example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Christopher88/scan001001.jpg

In this icon we see a familiar figure, Christ. To reinforce that, there is the crossed halo, only reserved for Christ.
It isn't too obvious from this icon, but his right hand is giving the blessing, though it is also pointing to the book in his left hand, the book is thought to be the book of life with the names of those in heaven inscribed (see revelation). I cannot read the script on this icon so I would appreciate a translation. Usually the script reads something like "I am the way the truth and the..."
The gold background symbolises heaven.
The blue (appears green) garment represents paradise, the red garment represents martyrdom (though usually it is red over blue...I only just realised this isn't a great example).

I'm sure that Michael the iconographer has much more to say.

Basically, I would just stick to Byzantine/Russian icons as they are well standardised with the iconographers making only subtle changes with their own style.

Coptic may appear more easy to the eye (though not in my case) but they usually lack somewhat in the rich symbolism of [Eastern] Orthodox icons.

I hope this helps.

Chris

[Dewi Sant]

BTW, for any who sees this thread before I resize the icon...sorry for the size.
It appears and loads fine on my monitor screen, but I appreciate that not all have monitors as large as mine.
I'm getting round to resizing it.

And yes, it is a print icon, not an original...I don't own any originals. I prefer icons to be there for their purpose, not to be there as works of art, also, being at uni, my study room has a very flimsy lock so I don't keep anything of much material value in here if I can help.

[Dewi Sant]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Christopher88/text.jpg

[nikostheater]

The writing in the book is not Greek.
Think it's Cyrillyc..

[Knowledge3]

I consider Coptic Christianity to be authentic and apostolic with the Apostolic Succession of St. Mark.

But there is some disagreement over Chalcedon and 5,6,7 Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church.

http://www.coptic-churches.ch/Imagges_Different/Icon_StMark-2.jpg

[Dewi Sant]

The writing in the book is not Greek.
Think it's Cyrillyc..

I don't know if it's a silly question, but is there anyone on here who can read Cyrillyc?

[Knowledge3]

I don't know if it's a silly question, but is there anyone on here who can read Cyrillyc?

I'm actually in favor of St. Cyril's Christology and 12 anathemas of Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus.

I could learn bits & pieces of Cyrilli if I apply myself to it.

[nestoj]

I don't know if it's a silly question, but is there anyone on here who can read Cyrillyc?
Think it is Church-Slavic, language of my ancestors. On this Icon, I believe it is writen (pardon me for errors in English):

English: - Do not judge, or you will be judged; For how you judge, same way will be judged to you;

Serbian: - Ne sudite, da vam se ne sudi;Jer kakvim sudom sudite, onakvim će vam se suditi;

Russian: - неналица зряще судите сн˜ове чл˜чести
ноправеден судъ судите имъ же бо судомъ судите судится вам

You will find it most simmilar with Rusian, but here I've used Serbian latinica so you could connect things (Russians don't use latin letters, Serbs also mainly use Cyrilic but can write with latin letters also)

nestoj
God Helps

[Nickolai]

I consider Coptic Christianity to be authentic and apostolic with the Apostolic Succession of St. Mark.

But there is some disagreement over Chalcedon and 5,6,7 Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church.

http://www.coptic-churches.ch/Imagges_Different/Icon_StMark-2.jpg

It's a little more than a disagreement K3, the Coptic Church, as well as all other OO Churches are in heresy.

They may have valid Succession, but they are not of the same faith.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm actually in favor of St. Cyril's Christology and 12 anathemas of Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus.

I could learn bits & pieces of Cyrilli if I apply myself to it.
I am beginning to think you think all Christianity pre Reformation is the same faith.

[Michael the Iconographer]

As for iconography, it is not one school vs. the other.

[Knowledge3]

I am beginning to think you think all Christianity pre Reformation is the same faith.

No, I don't.

I'm exploring all sides of the multi-faceted diamond of Orthodox/Catholic Christianity.

[Michael the Iconographer]

No, I don't.

I'm exploring all sides of the multi-faceted diamond of Orthodox/Catholic Christianity.

Ok, it offends the death out of me that you consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be one in the same faith. It is not. Roman Catholicism began to separate from Orthodox Christianity as early as the mid 5th century, and while it took 500 years for the schism to occur, they division was already there. Catholicism has much more in common with protestantism than it does with Orthodoxy and I wish you would be more respectful of the Orthodox Christians on this forum who do actually practice the apostolic faith.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Sorry to the OP.

[Knowledge3]

Ok, it offends the death out of me that you consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be one in the same faith. It is not. Roman Catholicism began to separate from Orthodox Christianity as early as the mid 5th century, and while it took 500 years for the schism to occur, they division was already there. Catholicism has much more in common with protestantism than it does with Orthodoxy and I wish you would be more respectful of the Orthodox Christians on this forum who do actually practice the apostolic faith.

I don't. :priest:

I consider the original,christian,patristic,orthodox/catholic ancient early Church to be the true Orthodox Faith.

Forgive me.

[Knowledge3]

Sorry to the OP.

You wouldn't by any chance happen to be a schismatic would you? :(

[jckstraw72]

You wouldn't by any chance happen to be a schismatic would you? :(

dude, this is WAY out of line. i have taken your side before, and i realize that a lot of the time we are not understanding you properly, and i try to ignore your posts that frequently have nothing to do with the OP, but this is just absurd. you are a catechumen, presuming to accuse someone who is already Orthodox and has been on this board much longer than you. as i said, this is WAY out of line, and i believe a sincere apology is in order.

[Michael the Iconographer]

You wouldn't by any chance happen to be a schismatic would you? :(

I am OCA. That is so ridiculous a comment that I won't even respond to your ignorance.

[Knowledge3]

I am OCA. That is so ridiculous a comment that I won't even respond to your ignorance.

You get all obsessed with a simple reference to the CC.

Why? :confused:

[Michael the Iconographer]

You get all obsessed with a simple reference to the CC.

Why? :confused:
Because you have not a clue what you are talking about, and yet you act like you are the professor of all things Orthodox. Your arrogance, pompousness, pretensiousness and high and mighty attitutude is very laughable. I suggest you keep your mouth shut, your ears open and learn something here. There are alot of people who have alot of experience with Orthdoox Christianity who could teach you alot of things here but have been turned off by your attitude. It is, as I said, laughable.

[Knowledge3]

Because you have not a clue what you are talking about, and yet you act like you are the professor of all things Orthodox. Your arrogance, pompousness, pretensiousness and high and mighty attitutude is very laughable. I suggest you keep your mouth shut, your ears open and learn something here. There are alot of people who have alot of experience with Orthdoox Christianity who could teach you alot of things here but have been turned off by your attitude. It is, as I said, laughable.

Ok.

Forgive me. :priest:

[kamikat]

Ok, folks, let's keep it civil. Please remember to post in Christian love and kindness.

kamikat
TAW supervisor

[Michael the Iconographer]

I demand an appology from this young kid asking me if I am schismatic, when I have been Orthodox nearly 8 years and he is but only a catechumen.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Back to the OP, the icons that I like best are classical Russian icons from Moscow and Novgorod in the 14th-16th C.

[repentant]

It's a little more than a disagreement K3, the Coptic Church, as well as all other OO Churches are in heresy.

They may have valid Succession, but they are not of the same faith.


And they don't have valid Apostolic succession either..

[Nickolai]

And they don't have valid Apostolic succession either..

From a strictly physical standpoint they do have it, as does the Papal church, but I understand your point. They no longer hold to the faith, so the succession is not valid.

[repentant]

From a strictly physical standpoint they do have it, as does the Papal church, but I understand your point. They no longer hold to the faith, so the succession is not valid.


Well..the Copts and the Romans are different. The Romans as a whole left the Church, along with the Bishop at the time. We have no Orthodox Bishop/Patriacrh of Rome.The Copts...part of them split and they appointed their own Bishop. So the Bishop that remained true to the faith, and his successors have Apostolic succession.

Difference between an enitre see leaving, and part of it. To say that the Copts have Apostolic succession, especially valid succesion would mean that either a) our own Patriarch of Alexandria doesn't, or b) their Bishop is equal to ours, and we have two..both with Apostolic succession. Now both of these scenerios can not be possible.

[Knowledge3]

Michael, I humbly apologize for asking a honest question if you were a schismatic because of your strict orthodoxy.

Peace, K3 :priest:

[repentant]

So strict Orthodoxy makes you schismatic? That's a new one.

[Knowledge3]

So strict Orthodoxy makes you schismatic? That's a new one.

No, if my memory serves me correctly choirfriend and eoe taught me about the papal innovations and that the catholic pope is a schismatic bishop.

I didn't quite understand that position from the eastern orthodox perspective. :confused:

[repentant]

No, if my memory serves me correctly choirfriend and eoe taught me about the papal innovations and that the catholic pope is a schismatic bishop.

I didn't quite understand that position from the eastern orthodox perspective. :confused:

And that pertains to being a strict Orthodox person how?

And what position do you not understand? That the Pope is schismantic?

[Nickolai]

Well..the Copts and the Romans are different. The Romans as a whole left the Church, along with the Bishop at the time. We have no Orthodox Bishop/Patriacrh of Rome.The Copts...part of them split and they appointed their own Bishop. So the Bishop that remained true to the faith, and his successors have Apostolic succession.

Difference between an enitre see leaving, and part of it. To say that the Copts have Apostolic succession, especially valid succesion would mean that either a) our own Patriarch of Alexandria doesn't, or b) their Bishop is equal to ours, and we have two..both with Apostolic succession. Now both of these scenerios can not be possible.

As I said, I get your point. They however do all have physical succession (i.e. their bishops were ordained by bishops, who were ordained by bishops... who were ordained by apostles), even if they fell into heresy and broke from the Church. And this is probably what K3 was referring to.

[EmperorConstantine]

OK, not really a 'which one's better than the other?' kind of thing, but which style do you more prefer. I prefer the more cartoonish style of the Coptic icons more. Even though I'd probably be Greek Orthodox, not Coptic, I'd still prefer to utilize their icon styles, especially in my prayer-shrines.:crosseo:.
I prefer the Greek/Slavic style. It's just what I'm used to and use.

[Knowledge3]

And that pertains to being a strict Orthodox person how?

Well, for me a strict Orthodox person who is loyal to the EOC Church may consider her the true Church and the other outside of the universal Church.

And what position do you not understand? That the Pope is schismantic?

Yes.

1)Papal Infallibility
2)Papal innovations
3) Western scholastic/methodological approach to a jurdicial view of the Atonement.
4) The selling of indulgences
5) The Immaculate Conception

And the various historic minor schisms with the Egyptian Coptics and Oriental Orthodox.

And not is Eastern Orthodox doctrine(s). :priest:

[repentant]

Well, for me a strict Orthodox person who is loyal to the EOC Church may consider her the true Church and the other outside of the universal Church.

And that makes you schismatic how?


Yes.

1)Papal Infallibility
2)Papal innovations
3) Western scholastic/methodological approach to a jurdicial view of the Atonement.
4) The selling of indulgences
5) The Immaculate Conception

And the various historic minor schisms with the Egyptian Coptics and Oriental Orthodox.

And not is Eastern Orthodox doctrine(s). :priest

You don't understand these things? Or are position about them?

[Knowledge3]

And that makes you schismatic how?

I'm still learning.

For me, to exclude people outside the Church is God's business and not mine to determine.

That's why I've always been careful not to promote exclusivism; which I fundamentally disagree with.

I'm also learning about Politick and government process in how the Churches relate to each other which is komplicated. :scratch:



You don't understand these things? Or are position about them?

I understand the position of the catholic pope, but do not understand why the Orthodox consider the bishop of Rome a schismatic bishop.

I can't be any more specific than that. :priest:

[repentant]

I'm still learning.

For me, to exclude people outside the Church is God's business and not mine to determine.

That's why I've always been careful not to promote exclusivism; which I fundamentally disagree with.

And what does this have to do with you calling Michael (or should I say ask if he was) a schismatic? I don't recall him saying anyone was outside of the Church.



I understand the position of the catholic pope, but do not understand why the Orthodox consider the bishop of Rome a schismatic bishop.

I can't be any more specific than that. :priest:

Because the west left the Church. The west made Doctrines and Dogmas not agreed with by the east. He is no longer part of the Church as we see it. Do I need to be anymore specific? :)

[buzuxi02]

The bishop of Rome is not only a schismatic but a heretic as well, thats why we cannot unite with him.

[repentant]

Yea what he said..

[AJB4]

This is pathetic. No offense, but can't you take this to a more appropriate thread? I asked for opinions about Greek and Coptic icons. Perhaps 3 posts out of the five pages of posts here have been about them :sigh:

Oh, and yes, I know it's not about the art, but rather what they're representing, I'm just wondering what style you'd prefer if you had to pick one.

[Knowledge3]

And that makes you schismatic how?

Because there was the 1054 schism.

If my memory serves me correctly, choirfriend and eoe taught me from the eastern orthodox perspective that the catholic pope is a schismatic bishop?

Would you care to explain the finer points of this "perspective?


You don't understand these things? Or are position about them?

I understand, but did not recieve any reasonable answer(s) to my question other than eastern orthodox opinion.

I've decided to trust and believe that chrismated eastern orthodox in TAW are teaching me the correct information and church teaching(s).

[kamikat]

I don't have time to dig up the passage right (maybe after the kids get off to school), but in "The Icon: Window on the Kingdom" by Michel Quenot, he explains why Coptic icons are not canonical and not really icons, as the Orthodox Church believes. I'll get back to you with the passage from the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Icon-Window-Kingdom-Michel-Quenot/dp/0881410985/sr=1-1/qid=1172580942/ref=sr_1_1/104-3706451-6870331?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Michael the Iconographer]

Michael, I humbly apologize for asking a honest question if you were a schismatic because of your strict orthodoxy.

Peace, K3 :priest:
Actually, I am a pretty liberal Orthodox. A strict Orthodox insists on confession before each reception of the eucharist and would insist all icons be written in egg tempera, where the majority of mine are written in acryllic.

[Knowledge3]

Actually, I am a pretty liberal Orthodox. A strict Orthodox insists on confession before each reception of the eucharist and would insist all icons be written in egg tempera, where the majority of mine are written in acryllic.

A small custom Icon of St. Photios the Great would be my choice for a custom special small icon. :)

His eastern theology and patrisitc exegesis inspired me to formally reject the filioque.

[Michael the Iconographer]

A small custom Icon of St. Photios the Great would be my choice for a custom special small icon. :)

His eastern theology and patrisitc exegesis inspired me to formally reject the filioque.
Like I said, icons are not cheap. The smallest icon I will write is 9x12 and my waiting time for completion is 4-5 months.

[Knowledge3]

[edit]

[Knowledge3]

Like I said, icons are not cheap. The smallest icon I will write is 9x12 and my waiting time for completion is 4-5 months.

I know, I have 2 authentic ones and a trip-tych of Theotokos,Jesus,and St. Nicholas. (pricey)

How much for a custom smallest icon of St. Photios the Great?

[nestoj]

Michael the Iconographer, didn't quite understood part about being liberal (egs and acrylic paint - hey, what's a big deal?) till i've readed this:

Many of these churches are fresco-painted with Lapis Lazuli, an actual semi-precious stone powdered into pigment and more expensive than gold, so the blue background is of the most brilliant and intense quality, uniting each composition into a vision of unearthly beauty.

and this:

By making a clear distinction between sacral and profane, between transfigured and fallen nature of men, while honoring the creation in its liturgy, worship and art (wine, bread, olive oil, wheat, etc, as well as natural materials used in iconography: mineral and earth pigments, wood, stone, gold, lime, eggs etc.)

Man, how hard is to find materials to make them?

nestoj
God helps

(p.s. mine favourite is actualy a fresco - White Angel, Mileseva, 1230 A.D - has any of you seen it)

[Michael the Iconographer]

I know, I have 2 authentic ones and a trip-tych of Theotokos,Jesus,and St. Nicholas. (pricey)

How much for a custom smallest icon of St. Photios the Great?
I dont discuss prices openly, you would have to email me. I don't write icons smaller than 9"x12".

[Knowledge3]

I dont discuss prices openly, you would have to email me. I don't write icons smaller than 9"x12".

Ok, I will contact you in the future by PM.

I actually prefer small iconography size .10X- 25X

[Michael the Iconographer]

.10 what?

[Knowledge3]

I have an authentic icon from New Skete "The Resurrection."

on the back it says X17.0 size.

[minasoliman]

Okay,

For those of you who take pleasure in just calling the OO Church heretical, I'd like to know what exactly the heresy is. So far, EO's here have failed to prove their point. If heresy is merely not accepting some councils, then fine, that is heretical on your terms. But if it's Christological, then you are wrong.

I have posted many rebuttals on the VitD forum and there's also a thread in the "denominational debates" where I have allowed a respectful discussion to occur on some of the things you can question the OO's on. I have even posted rebuttals here when wrong information was given against our church.

If you like me to give you some links, I'd be more than happy to do so. Otherwise, don't make silly blanket statements like "they're heretics" if you don't even know what the heresy is because frankly, that's disrespectful. And may I add, not all EO's believe the same, and I wish that many of you realize that. If you are going to make statements that are representative of all EO's, I would expect many of you would say "In my personal opinion, although other EO's may differ...".

As for our icons being "heretical" or "non-canonical," I'm interested to here why Michel Quenot thinks in that manner. I'm no expert in iconography, but I do trust the expertise of people like Michael the Iconographer and so forth, since to the Coptic Church, iconography is not just a piece of art, but a written theological work, and the theology of icons in the EO Church seems to be similar to that of the OO's.

Forgive me for straying from the OP, but I wish to ask those who seem to be confident of our "heretical status" to be more persuasive, objective, and respectful next time, and not present their own mere opinions repeating the words of some of their influences.

Have a blessed Lent.

[Knowledge3]

Okay,

For those of you who take pleasure in just calling the OO Church heretical, I'd like to know what exactly the heresy is. So far, EO's here have failed to prove their point. If heresy is merely not accepting some councils, then fine, that is heretical on your terms. But if it's Christological, then you are wrong.

I have posted many rebuttals on the VitD forum and there's also a thread in the "denominational debates" where I have allowed a respectful discussion to occur on some of the things you can question the OO's on. I have even posted rebuttals here when wrong information was given against our church.

If you like me to give you some links, I'd be more than happy to do so. Otherwise, don't make silly blanket statements like "they're heretics" if you don't even know what the heresy is because frankly, that's disrespectful. And may I add, not all EO's believe the same, and I wish that many of you realize that. If you are going to make statements that are representative of all EO's, I would expect many of you would say "In my personal opinion, although other EO's may differ...".

As for our icons being "heretical" or "non-canonical," I'm interested to here why Michel Quenot thinks in that manner. I'm no expert in iconography, but I do trust the expertise of people like Michael the Iconographer and so forth, since to the Coptic Church, iconography is not just a piece of art, but a written theological work, and the theology of icons in the EO Church seems to be similar to that of the OO's.

Forgive me for straying from the OP, but I wish to ask those who seem to be confident of our "heretical status" to be more persuasive, objective, and respectful next time, and not present their own mere opinions repeating the words of some of their influences.

Have a blessed Lent.

Actually, it is a komplicated issue of Christology in relation to the Antiochene thought of the Alexandrian east.

If I'm correct, the OO are Mia-physis meaning One Incarnate Nature.

Chalcedon decided that Christ was/is two perfect natures divine/human in one Person.

To me, it seems like you guys didn't show up. :confused:

[minasoliman]

Dear Knowledge,

No. We did show up. We were Alexandrian in usage. That is correct. However, we disagreed on the basis that Chalcedon was Nestorian, since it has chosen an Antiochian route of terminology, choosing "in two natures" and rejecting "of two natures".

God bless.

[Knowledge3]

Dear Knowledge,

No. We did show up. We were Alexandrian in usage. That is correct. However, we disagreed on the basis that Chalcedon was Nestorian, since it has chosen an Antiochian route of terminology, choosing "in two natures" and rejecting "of two natures".

God bless.

Understood, not to mention Eygpt is quite a long distance from Constantinople. ;)

[Knowledge3]

.10 what?

Michael, I'm not sure why Orthodox icons are considered authentic while Coptic icons are not.

Can you explain?

[minasoliman]

Well, that wasn't a problem. Egypt was always involved in ecumenical councils, especially since it was heavily relied on due to her influential theological school in Alexandria, which gave birth to many great theologians in history in Egypt and outside her as well.

I think more than anything, people need to understand that this is not just a small part of Egypt that decided to separate herself from the Roman empire. This is a huge part. Today, Alexandrian Greek Orthodox are probably no more than 10,000, situated mostly in the city of Alexandria, whereas Coptic Orthodoxy comprises of about 95% of Egypt's Christians. One has to take seriously why the Roman Church lost so many of Egypt's Christian heritage, and not just Egypt, but Syria, Armenia, India, Ethiopia, and Arabia. The schism back then was not a mere small group of churches that caused a huge ruckus. The schism split and weakened the Roman empire drastically.

Secondly, the OO's are not like the Roman Church, where there's one head that decides for all. Every church is equal ecclesiastically to the other. Therefore, one has to take into account that such Alexandrian theology was felt threatened by the decisions of Chalcedon, and many heads have chosen freely to join the Coptic Church despite the fact that we were against two powerful cities, Rome and Constantinople.

So while many may say we are no more heretical than say the Roman Church, let us not forget that the Roman Church had a Pope to speak for almost all of Europe. In the OO Church, you can't just say half of Eastern Christianity was heretical because of the Pope of Alexandria, since we believed in no such primacy.

God bless.

[Nickolai]

Dear Knowledge,

No. We did show up. We were Alexandrian in usage. That is correct. However, we disagreed on the basis that Chalcedon was Nestorian, since it has chosen an Antiochian route of terminology, choosing "in two natures" and rejecting "of two natures".

God bless.

But you also follow monothelitism. This is also a heresy in our eyes. It was rejected at the 6th council.

[minasoliman]

But you also follow monothelitism. This is also a heresy in our eyes. It was rejected at the 6th council.
Dear Nikolai,

The OO Church is not a Monothelete, it is a Miathelete. We believe in the full human will and divine will of Christ without confusion, mixture, division, or separation. We say "One Incarnate Will" on the basis that the human will is fully alligned with the divine will.

Monotheletism was never a problem in the OO Church. In fact, it was solely an EO problem, with people like Pyrrhus who propagated the heresy in the Roman Church, which is why the Roman empire felt necessary to make a council. We held no such council because no such heresy existed in the OO Church.

Unless you are very sure of your knowledge and ready to verify, making such blanket statements only shows how much you do not know the OO Church.

God bless.

Mina

[Knowledge3]

In the OO Church, you can't just say half of Eastern Christianity was heretical because of the Pope of Alexandria, since we believed in no such primacy.

God bless.

The ancient,authentic,and patristic doctrine of the petrine primacy of St. Peter is authentic as the Successor of Peter in the CC.

However, the EO does not fully agree with the Roman Catholic ideology that one pope is to be the head over a whole church.

[Nickolai]

Dear Nikolai,

The OO Church is not a Monothelete, it is a Miathelete. We believe in the full human will and divine will of Christ without confusion, mixture, division, or separation. We say "One Incarnate Will" on the basis that the human will is fully alligned with the divine will.

Monotheletism was never a problem in the OO Church. In fact, it was solely an EO problem, with people like Pyrrhus who propagated the heresy in the Roman Church, which is why the Roman empire felt necessary to make a council. We held no such council because no such heresy existed in the OO Church.

Unless you are very sure of your knowledge and ready to verify, making such blanket statements only shows how much you do not know the OO Church.

God bless.

Mina

Whether or not you want to claim that OO theology is miathelite rather than monothelite makes no difference. The EO stance is dythelitism. Any other belief in regards to that aspect of Christology is heretical to us. Maximus the Confessor was a champion of the Church because of his support of dythelitism.

[minasoliman]

Whether or not you want to claim that OO theology is miathelite rather than monothelite makes no difference. The EO stance is dythelitism. Any other belief in regards to that aspect of Christology is heretical to us. Maximus the Confessor was a champion of the Church because of his support of dythelitism.
Suit yourself, but you do no good service to pre-Chalcedonian fathers who believed likewise.

As for St. Maximus the Confessor, he was always Miathelete. He ended up being diathelete for the heresies of the Monotheletes. Being Diathelete or Miathelete is no different. Both still confess the full human and divine wills. I think that's the same rational you give to Chalcedon's use of "in two natures."

If you have a problem with the OO confession and continue to deny it, then you put yourself in an embarrassing situation. To me, what you said is like saying "we now speak Greek. Speaking in German or any other non-Greek language is heretical."

God bless.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I have an authentic icon from New Skete "The Resurrection."

on the back it says X17.0 size.
I don't know what that means, I measure in inches. The smallest icon I will touch is 9 inches x 12 inches.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Michael, I'm not sure why Orthodox icons are considered authentic while Coptic icons are not.

Can you explain?
I NEVER said Coptic icons are NOT authentic.

[Knowledge3]

I don't know what that means, I measure in inches. The smallest icon I will touch is 9 inches x 12 inches.

I'm serious about forming a unique collection of small icons.

I got a ruler and measured "The Resurrection" from New Skete.

It is 6 1/2 x 4.

But 9 inches x12 would work.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm serious about forming a unique collection of small icons.

I got a ruler and measured "The Resurrection" from New Skete.

It is 6 1/2 x 4.

But 9 inches x12 would work.
You could NOT pay me enough money to write an icon that small (6 1/4 x 4).

[Knowledge3]

I NEVER said Coptic icons are NOT authentic.

Then you better ask repentant why he doesn't accept that they have Apostolic Succession from St. Mark. lol see? ^_^

[Michael the Iconographer]

And what does this have to do with you calling Michael (or should I say ask if he was) a schismatic? I don't recall him saying anyone was outside of the Church.





Because the west left the Church. The west made Doctrines and Dogmas not agreed with by the east. He is no longer part of the Church as we see it. Do I need to be anymore specific? :)
Marks this down on calendar, the day Repentant defended me! :D :thumbsup:

[NyssaTheHobbit]

I'm not following this whole thread (7 pages? gaah!), but I just wanted to add something. I've been reading "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware for Lent. The split with the OO, from the way he described it, sounded like the result of different schools of thought trying to explain/describe the same thing (Syriac vs. Greek). They didn't understand each other, and ended up cutting off one of the three main branches which balanced each other. Eventually the Latins and Greeks split from each other, which had a similar effect. The three branches needed each other, like the three branches of US government need each other to stay balanced, and being split from each other has resulted in extremism. This has given me yet another reason to root for the restoration of the three branches with each other.

[minasoliman]

I'm not following this whole thread (7 pages? gaah!), but I just wanted to add something. I've been reading "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware for Lent. The split with the OO, from the way he described it, sounded like the result of different schools of thought trying to explain/describe the same thing (Syriac vs. Greek). They didn't understand each other, and ended up cutting off one of the three main branches which balanced each other. Eventually the Latins and Greeks split from each other, which had a similar effect. The three branches needed each other, like the three branches of US government need each other to stay balanced, and being split from each other has resulted in extremism. This has given me yet another reason to root for the restoration of the three branches with each other.
Many EO theologians have however spoken of the "remarkable" similarities between the EO's and the OO's to which shows a promising union. Many, like Fr. John Romanides himself, who were hard-core fundamentalists have mentioned that the split specifically between EO's and OO's should never have occured in the first place, whereas something like the RCC was an inevitable case.

God bless.

[Matrona]

I'm not following this whole thread (7 pages? gaah!), but I just wanted to add something. I've been reading "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware for Lent. The split with the OO, from the way he described it, sounded like the result of different schools of thought trying to explain/describe the same thing (Syriac vs. Greek). They didn't understand each other, and ended up cutting off one of the three main branches which balanced each other.

Some modern theologians interpret the non-Chalcedonians' leaving the Church that way. I definitely wouldn't call it universal.

[cassc]

Ok, so anyway, AJB4 I like Byzantine style Icons. And even though I know that Icons are not "art" and I do not mean to imply in anyway that they are I actually find their unusual form more visually appealing than Coptic Icons and Western religious art. Of course I am always the first to admit that my tastiest can be a little strange :) Incidentally I think hand written Icons have a special quality that reproductions simply cannot replicate, but they are often out of my price range (worth it but expensive...). While this is a bit off topic, so is most of this thread so... I get upset when people tell others online that they should not use reproductions and prints, if that is the only way someone can afford an icon then that should be fine even if it is not to the letter of the law. IMO a lot of judgment in this respect comes out of vanity and pride because I cannot imagine anyone speaking out of CHristian love telling another to deprive themselves because they cannot afford handwritten Icons. :sigh: OK I'm done venting this (meaning the original topic) is a good one AJ considering that we celebrated their restoration on the Sunday of Orthodoxy!

[repentant]

Marks this down on calendar, the day Repentant defended me! :D :thumbsup:


What is that supposed to mean??

[jckstraw72]

while i personally have a hard time understanding how we differ from OO other than terminology, if all it was was a language issue, then the Church ahs been in major error for a looooooong time, and thats a problem.

[Matrona]

while i personally have a hard time understanding how we differ from OO other than terminology, if all it was was a language issue, then the Church ahs been in major error for a looooooong time, and thats a problem.

There's also the fact that if it really was a language issue all along, the non-Chalcedonians shouldn't have a problem with using Chalcedonian terminology exclusively, instead of trying to get us to drop Chalcedon.

[Michael the Iconographer]

What is that supposed to mean??
Just picking on you! :D

[minasoliman]

There's also the fact that if it really was a language issue all along, the non-Chalcedonians shouldn't have a problem with using Chalcedonian terminology exclusively, instead of trying to get us to drop Chalcedon.
Well Matrona,

Since you're so knowledgeable that it's not a language issue, I'm waiting to here your infallible reasoning.

If anything not all OO's look for unity, and many OO's have considered Chalcedon Nestorian. So even if there was no union, I'm sure when you read our books, you can see how narrow-minded we used to be on the issue.

But perhaps we should return to the days when we can once again call Chalcedon Nestorian, and Leo a murderer.

[Knowledge3]

But perhaps we should return to the days when we can once again call Chalcedon Nestorian, and Leo a murderer.

Chalcedon is not an option.

Nestorius was deposed and anathemized by St. Cyril in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

There are two natures in Christ, divine/human and there is no mingling,confusion,commingling or mixing of the two perfect natures in Christ.

[minasoliman]

[delete]

[Knowledge3]

Same thing Nestorius said, which is why St. Cyril believed in One Incarnate Nature.


If Nestorius is already anathemized and deposed by the Council of Ephesus, why do you bring the heretic up at Chalcedon?

Being a "Monophysite" isn't correct Christology.

[minasoliman]

You know what....I crossed the line here. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have written that last post.

But at the same time, I am no Monophysite. Like I said before, the OO Church condemns Monophysitism.

If anything, before anyone makes remarks that have already been answered, I encourage people to read these:
http://www.christianforums.com/t4445730-is-the-oriental-orthodox-church-a-heretical-church.html

Maybe, over there if people are interested, I can explain in length why we considered Chalcedon Nestorian.

God bless.

[Knowledge3]

Maybe, over there if people are interested, I can explain in length why we considered Chalcedon Nestorian.

That is going to be very weak argument.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon III was confirmed with the unanimous descision(s) of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[minasoliman]

I would be interested to know which argument is weak.

I understand that I have caused you some anger. In this case, I apologize for the offenses I've caused. I wish you may also realize how much many things written here have also offended me.

So if anything, if you like, please explain to me what argument it is that is weak on that thread, and I'd be happy to address them. Perhaps, you may be convincing enough that I might leave my church and join yours.

God bless you.

[Knowledge3]

I would be interested to know which argument is weak.

I understand that I have caused you some anger. In this case, I apologize for the offenses I've caused. I wish you may also realize how much many things written here have also offended me.

Apologies to you as well.



So if anything, if you like, please explain to me what argument it is that is weak on that thread, and I'd be happy to address them. Perhaps, you may be convincing enough that I might leave my church and join yours.

God bless you.

I have no desire to lead anyone away from a true Church.

I have a Coptic faith icon in my signature.

:priest:

[minasoliman]

Apologies to you as well.




I have no desire to lead anyone away from a true Church.

I have a Coptic faith icon in my signature.

:priest:
Forgive me. I'm confused. I first had the impression that you thought my church was heretical, but now you tell me it's true?

[Knowledge3]

Forgive me. I'm confused. I first had the impression that you thought my church was heretical, but now you tell me it's true?

Yes, I recognize the Coptic CO and OO with valid Apostolic Succession through St. Mark.

And that Coptic icons are also authentic.

It is a komplicated Christology issue within Eastern Orthodox thought.

[copticorthodoxy]

i will not break the rules and turn this thread into EO / OO debate .. but for those who see that the OO succession is not vaild i say that is funny ... There is one and only one Alexandrian Orthodox church which is the Coptic Orthodox church and all St. Mark see . this is the presence fact and no need to proof it . this thread is about icons . so why you insist to insult the OO churches

[Knowledge3]

See? ^^^ :priest:

[repentant]

The see of St. Mark belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and His Beatitude Theodoros II Patriarch of Alexandria & All Africa..

[Kristos]

I tend to prefer Russian icons. Rublev et al.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I tend to prefer Russian icons. Rublev et al.
I especially like classical Russian icons, from Novgorod and Moscow in the 13th-16th centuries.

[Kristos]

I especially like classical Russian icons, from Novgorod and Moscow in the 13th-16th centuries.
MI - have you watched the movie "Andei Rublev"? Really good. I would think that an iconographer would find it even more interesting than I did.

[Michael the Iconographer]

MI - have you watched the movie "Andei Rublev"? Really good. I would think that an iconographer would find it even more interesting than I did.
I keep hearing about it, but have yet to see it. I need to change that, soon.

[copticorthodoxy]

The see of St. Mark belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and His Beatitude Theodoros II Patriarch of Alexandria & All Africa..

With much respect to the Greek Church in Alexandria , it is a foreign church . no one here know about it .. there is no Greek Orthodox believers in Egypt .. they are just a few foreign families ... all the christians in St. Mark see belong to the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and H.H. pope Shenouda III ..

[Theophorus]

With much respect to the Greek Church in Alexandria , it is a foreign church . no one here know about it .. there is no Greek Orthodox believers in Egypt .. they are just a few foreign families ... all the christians in St. Mark see belong to the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and H.H. pope Shenouda III ..

What is interesting to me is how this "plays out" at the Chalice in America.
I have seen OO take communion at Greek and OCA parishes. Even with a bishop present. They are members of the parishes.

[Matrona]

What is interesting to me is how this "plays out" at the Chalice in America.
I have seen OO take communion at Greek and OCA parishes. Even with a bishop present. They are members of the parishes.

Even if they happen to be of an ethnicity that is typically associated with a non-Chalcedonian religion, if they have now joined the Orthodox Church, that's fine.

If not... just because it's done doesn't make it right. I really hope the idea that Chalcedon is disposable has not become so pervasive as to taint the minds of Orthodox hierarchs. And bishops do not check the stats of everyone who walks in the door wherever they are visiting, so the fact that one was watching doesn't say much.

[copticorthodoxy]

What is interesting to me is how this "plays out" at the Chalice in America.
I have seen OO take communion at Greek and OCA parishes. Even with a bishop present. They are members of the parishes.
:scratch:

[Michael the Iconographer]

I thought this thread was about icons?

[copticorthodoxy]

I thought this thread was about icons?
It is about the icons but as usual some people turned it into OO / EO debate ...
Icons are common in the OO & EO churches , it express our Christology and our faith in beautiful way , for every church there is its own icons which express its culture

[Michael the Iconographer]

It is about the icons but as usual some people turned it into OO / EO debate ...
Icons are common in the OO & EO churches , it express our Christology and our faith in beautiful way , for every church there is its own icons which express its culture

I personally love Coptic icons. I have 2, The Mystical Supper and St. George. I would have to study the Coptic style quite a bit, but I would love to write a Coptic icon of some of the Egyptian saints.

[minasoliman]

If not... just because it's done doesn't make it right. I really hope the idea that Chalcedon is disposable has not become so pervasive as to taint the minds of Orthodox hierarchs. And bishops do not check the stats of everyone who walks in the door wherever they are visiting, so the fact that one was watching doesn't say much.Well, don't you think it's because these bishops might have come to a realization that we were Orthodox all this time regardless of Chalcedon? And if you tell me that that's not true, then you still haven't answered my simple question before, the question I've asked for the past year in these forums. Where is the heresy in us? What rebuttals can you think of that can convince me of my heretical status?

So far, it's the non-answering that EO's do that put so many wannabe converts in despair. I know of quite a few who I have even encouraged to become EO, and yet they felt that they cannot be in union with a church where all the bishops do not even agree. Others who have converted either got the right idea or haven't given a single worth about the whole "Chalcedonian debate." Maybe it's time for you Matrona (if not TAW) rather than making your ever so bold and blanket statements to verify them, other than "because my bishop says so." Cause frankly, you just proved you don't even want to listen to those other heretical ecumenist bishops.

And I still wonder how a style of an icon (i.e. Coptic) can be un-canonical.

[Matrona]

Well, don't you think it's because these bishops might have come to a realization that we were Orthodox all this time regardless of Chalcedon? And if you tell me that that's not true, then you still haven't answered my simple question before, the question I've asked for the past year in these forums. Where is the heresy in us? What rebuttals can you think of that can convince me of my heretical status?

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but I'll give it another shot. Christ has two Natures and two Wills in His one incarnate person. You're free to believe whatever you like, but if you deny that, as the non-Chalcedonian churches do, you do not have the same Christology as the Orthodox.

[minasoliman]

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but I'll give it another shot. Christ has two Natures and two Wills in His one incarnate person. You're free to believe whatever you like, but if you deny that, as the non-Chalcedonian churches do, you do not have the same Christology as the Orthodox.
So basically you're telling me that merely saying the right terminology is more important than the essence of what the term means. Kinda like speaking Greek is Orthodox, and speaking English is heretical.

Here's the issue. If it's all just an affirmation of human and divine natures and wills, then the non-Chalcedonian churches most certainly do believe.

[choirfiend]

No, not like speaking Greek is good and English is bad. You're offended and making bad parallels. But most assuredly, the way it is said is important--for the very reason of that affects and determines the meaning and essence of what is meant. We had a whole council that hinged on one iota, remember. Currently, there is still a chasm between our Churches. Repeating that you believe the exact same as us is not true when one looks at what is MEANT and what has historically been meant and believed by your Church, represented through writings, and by who your saints are. It takes reconciling our beliefs until they are the same---not just insisting they are the same---that will reunite OO and EO.

[Kristos]

I still like Russian icons. Greek are okay. We have an Ethiopian icon of St George at our church - it's a bit different and interesting. I love the music in the Ethiopian Liturgy. I wish we could all worship together.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I still like Russian icons. Greek are okay. We have an Ethiopian icon of St George at our church - it's a bit different and interesting. I love the music in the Ethiopian Liturgy. I wish we could all worship together.
Ethiopian icons are similar to Coptic icons and are actually kind of similar to Celtic icons as well. I really want to write a Celtic Icon of St. Patrick.

[minasoliman]

Dear choirfriend,

I understand exactly what you're saying. Allow me to defend myself.

We had a whole council that hinged on one iota, remember.

Yes, but that's different. The iota addition made Christ a creation, whereas St. Athanasius' insistence on deleting the iota made the Son of God equal and of one essence with the Father. And just to make sure, we actually have a few documents on Arius, Eunomius, and many of their followers for actually believing that Christ was not even consubstantial with the Father.

With Chalcedon, the fight was about what exactly happened at Ephesus 449. To say that Chalcedon condemned Eutychianism is obviously an oversimplification of the facts, but to say that people like Dioscorus or Severus were Eutychians are against the facts themselves. I encourage to do the research. The minutes are actually just recently translated in English and sold at Amazon, but it's too expensive. I'll recommend some books if you like.

Currently, there is still a chasm between our Churches.

Indeed, but while there is a chasm, may I remind you that talks between our most respected theologians of the time had talks since the 1960s. Four unofficial and four official councils were held since then, with agreements made with your patriarchs at Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, OCA, MP, and many more to come. We are getting closer and closer to closing the chasm trying to get people to read those eight councils (people who seem to be unfortunately blind). In fact, the only ones I know that are against union are Jerusalem, I think Greece (although GOA is different probably due to the fact that they belong more to the EP), ROCOR, the Mt. Athos monks (the strongest voice of all of them), and maybe some "schismatic" Orthodox, but seems to be serious Orthodox believers, like ROCA and Greek Orthodox Church in Resistance.

Repeating that you believe the exact same as us is not true when one looks at what is MEANT and what has historically been meant and believed by your Church, represented through writings, and by who your saints are.

And I have provided countless times sources on where you can read those writings, some of them for free might I add. Most of our fathers' writings can be read at tertullian.org/fathers

It takes reconciling our beliefs until they are the same---not just insisting they are the same---that will reunite OO and EO.

We already have done the reconciling (unless you define "reconcile" differently). Aarhus 1964, Bristol 1967, Geneva 1970, Addis Ababa 1971, Chambesy 1985, Corinth 1987, Egypt in 1989 and 1990, and finally Geneva in 1990. All these were meetings held to try to see where reconciling can be done. Well apparently, through intense research all these men, clergy and laymen alike, found the evidence to be overwhelming (apparently), that agreement in Orthodox faith is not limited to present time (and not limited to Christology might I add), but also since Chalcedon.

Now that the reconciling is done and the unity plans are in, it is now time to try to teach people and make them realize the truth. This is why many EO's on your side and OO's on our's have practiced open communion with one another.

Meanwhile, I ask you all in TAW and I have created a thread in the debates forum (although I don't want it to be a "debate") to develop any thing against the OO Church historically and against her fathers and saints, or at least some things that might be "bothering" you in an irenic spirit without actually "debating". So far, nothing. Astonishing how a group of TAW members who are so sure of themselves that Chalcedon is inerrant and we (or our fathers really) are heretics when they can't prove it or rebut our arguments, or simply just ignore us if they do know, since we seem to be just ignorant fools ourselves.

What about those Protestants who believed that RC's and Orthodox are nothing but a bunch of saint-worshiping heretics? Did they not do the research themselves and find out the truth, that the Church was always sacramental and liturgical, that bishops were always present, that veneration of the saints is not something bad nor the veneration of icons is "wood-worshiping." Did they not also have to read historical documents of our ancient fathers and find out the truth through that?

What about the RC's? How else would RC's know that the Church never believed that St. Mary was immaculately conceived or that the Pope of Rome did not have a temporal authority over the whole Church based on St. Peter's authority? Is it not through intense study of the facts in history?

Why then do you not do the same for OO's just as those theologians since the 1960s did?

I hope none of what I said was taken in offence, but as a serious and deep personal question to try to find the answer to all your intolerances that have bothered me for the past four years of my life ever since I started studying theology.

God bless.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Ok, I give up. This thread was supposed to be about icons, but has turned into the same old Chalcedon vs. Non-Chalcedon thread that happens every time the word "coptic" is mentioned. None of us are theologians, nor church historians, nor bishops. Instead of focusing on what unites us, our belief in the veneration of iconography, we focus on what disunites us, be it semantic or real. To me, it is sad.

[Matrona]

With Chalcedon, the fight was about what exactly happened at Ephesus 449. To say that Chalcedon condemned Eutychianism is obviously an oversimplification of the facts, but to say that people like Dioscorus or Severus were Eutychians are against the facts themselves. I encourage to do the research. The minutes are actually just recently translated in English and sold at Amazon, but it's too expensive. I'll recommend some books if you like.

And we know Dioscorus and Severus were not Eutychians. We still condemn them because their Christology was still at variance with ours. To hold an Orthodox Christology, it's not enough to simply not be a Eutychian.

We are getting closer and closer to closing the chasm trying to get people to read those eight councils (people who seem to be unfortunately blind).

I'm not blind. Dioscorus and Severus, while not Eutychian monophysites, were still wrong, still insisted on holding beliefs at variance with Orthodoxy, and were rightly condemned.

Meanwhile, I ask you all in TAW and I have created a thread in the debates forum (although I don't want it to be a "debate") to develop any thing against the OO Church historically and against her fathers and saints, or at least some things that might be "bothering" you in an irenic spirit without actually "debating". So far, nothing. Astonishing how a group of TAW members who are so sure of themselves that Chalcedon is inerrant and we (or our fathers really) are heretics when they can't prove it or rebut our arguments, or simply just ignore us if they do know, since we seem to be just ignorant fools ourselves.

There's nothing to debate about. We just keep telling you the same thing and you do not listen. We are not intolerant or hateful; we're trying to correct you out of love!

Intercommunion is supposed to be a sign of unity of faith, not the means of establishing it, but a few (actual) Orthodox have unfortunately allowed compassion and blindness to overpower their faculties and blurred the distinction between the Church and those outside it by allowing non-Chalcedonians to commune. And you are the perfect example of why this is a tragedy, because it has given you the impression that you hold the same faith as the Orthodox, and now you are hurt when you find that the rest of us don't approve of using the precious Body and Blood in such a way. Guarding the chalice from non-Orthodox is never meant as an insult, we do it to protect people from partaking wrongfully by doing so before they have prepared themselves by confessing the Orthodox Faith... part of which is confessing that Christ has Two Incarnate Natures in His One Incarnate Person.

[Philothei]

And we know Dioscorus and Severus were not Eutychians. We still condemn them because their Christology was still at variance with ours. To hold an Orthodox Christology, it's not enough to simply not be a Eutychian.



I'm not blind. Dioscorus and Severus, while not Eutychian monophysites, were still wrong, still insisted on holding beliefs at variance with Orthodoxy, and were rightly condemned.



There's nothing to debate about. We just keep telling you the same thing and you do not listen. We are not intolerant or hateful; we're trying to correct you out of love!

Intercommunion is supposed to be a sign of unity of faith, not the means of establishing it, but a few (actual) Orthodox have unfortunately allowed compassion and blindness to overpower their faculties and blurred the distinction between the Church and those outside it by allowing non-Chalcedonians to commune. And you are the perfect example of why this is a tragedy, because it has given you the impression that you hold the same faith as the Orthodox, and now you are hurt when you find that the rest of us don't approve of using the precious Body and Blood in such a way. Guarding the chalice from non-Orthodox is never meant as an insult, we do it to protect people from partaking wrongfully by doing so before they have prepared themselves by confessing the Orthodox Faith... part of which is confessing that Christ has Two Incarnate Natures in His One Incarnate Person.
wait a minute here.... We are having serious dialogue with the O.O and you think that "allowing" the Holy Spirit guiding us into communion with a Church as old as the O.O is something wrong... IMO it is defenetely something good.

The modern ecumenical movement and modern historical scholarship have indeed helped bring our churches closer. They are now able to view both each other and their own histories in a new perspective. But we should not conclude from this that the present rapprochement is simply the result of modern relativism or the “pan-heresy of ecumenism,” as some self-styled traditionalists might charge. Even during the long centuries of division there were some on both sides who recognized that differences between the churches’ preferred Christological formulations were essentially verbal rather than substantive. And during those centuries there also were efforts to reach agreement and to restore communion. These early efforts are instructive and merit closer examination. They illustrate what both sides - at the time at least - regarded as the proper basis for reunion.


http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

This seems a very reputable web site also since it is OCA.

Please read it and note that Chalchedon had weak points to it too... I know it is tedious but if we want to be fair we need to look at the facts too. I do not insinuate that the premise 2 natures, two wills are wrong eihter...just in case someone classifies the info I bring forth as ... heresy.

by the way the O.O who take communion in the E.O churches are NOT converted to EO church. What happens is that the Bishops give special economia for them to take the sacraments. That is how close to union we are with the O.O.

God bless, and I am sorry to post on this issue sorry to the OP...:(


As far as the coptic Orthodox icons, they are beautiful (not heretical or whatever...lol...)

I love the Ethiopean too! Great teaching tools for children too. Kids love them and they are easier to understand. Can anyone post some samples?? I did not see any yet....this is supposed to be a thread on icons...

God bless,
and Lord have mercy.
Philothei

[Knowledge3]

http://www.copticchurch.org/Pictures/Icons/Isaak%20fanous/DivineMajesty.jpg

[Anhelyna]

Nice one WP - you beat me to it :P

BUT - I'll now provide a link for more of them

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/

Enjoy

[Philothei]

http://www.copticchurch.org/Pictures/Icons/Isaak%20fanous/DivineMajesty.jpg
beautiful Wes! it kind of looks like the Mandylion... Michael can tell us...

P.

[Philothei]

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/albums/Angels/angel06.jpg

is this archangel Michael?? love the elaborate stole....
P.

[Philothei]

Nice one WP - you beat me to it :P

BUT - I'll now provide a link for more of them

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/

Enjoy
Thanks Anhelyna for the link.

P.

[Knowledge3]

http://www.theotokos.org/Images/OtherIcons/TheHolySpirit.jpg

[Philothei]

http://www.theotokos.org/Images/OtherIcons/TheHolySpirit.jpg
wow this is different and so pretty...

[TamaraLynne]

http://www.theotokos.org/Images/OtherIcons/TheHolySpirit.jpg
beautiful...........

[nutroll]

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/albums/Angels/angel06.jpg

is this archangel Michael?? love the elaborate stole....
P.
It looks like the Archangel Gabriel from the inscription, and from the fact that he is holding a lily. A lily is the symbol for purity, and Gabriel is often shown holding one.

[Matrona]

wait a minute here.... We are having serious dialogue with the O.O and you think that "allowing" the Holy Spirit guiding us into communion with a Church as old as the O.O is something wrong... IMO it is defenetely something good.

I am not at all against anyone outside the Church joining it. If all this really amounts to a simple terminological difference, as some claim, then the non-Chalcedonians should not have any problem accepting Chalcedonian terminology.

I don't see what the big deal is. If they don't like Chalcedon, that's fine, it's a free country, that just means we don't share the same faith and should not share communion, not that we have to have a fight to the death over it.

[minasoliman]

Dear Matrona,

Okay, perhaps we're finally getting somewhere.

You're telling me that people like Dioscorus and Severus were not Eutychians, but at the same time, you're saying they're not at Christological agreement with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

That second part is what I'm questioning. Where exactly are they not at agreement. Is it because they simply say "one Incarnate nature" regardless of the fact that they confess full and real human and divine natures and wills? If it's all just terminological, then is terminology heresy?

I am not at all against anyone outside the Church joining it. If all this really amounts to a simple terminological difference, as some claim, then the non-Chalcedonians should not have any problem accepting Chalcedonian terminology.

It's not simply terminological difference of the present time. We argue that it was terminological difference of that ancient time too, between Dioscorus and Severus and the Chalcedonians (at least the faithful Orthodox ones). We realize now the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon and the other three councils, but we're not going to accept them if that means condemning those two men and others associated with them who believed in the same thing. That's the whole issue Matrona.

It's not just about the present, it's about the past. It's about reading the fathers and reading their intentions. That's what choirfriend said, I agreed, and I encouraged everyone here to do the research, and not just read biased writings like orthodoxinfo.com. I've already made a few rebuttals against them written in christianforums.com.

God bless.

[minasoliman]

It looks like the Archangel Gabriel from the inscription, and from the fact that he is holding a lily. A lily is the symbol for purity, and Gabriel is often shown holding one.
It's Archangel Gabriel. On the right, you see the Coptic letters gamma, beta, and lambda with a line on top. These three letters are "short" for "Gabriel."
On the left, it says "Piarshi Angelos," the second one spelled "alpha, gamma, gamma" with a line on top short for "Angelos."


God bless.

[Michael the Iconographer]

http://www.theotokos.org/Images/OtherIcons/TheHolySpirit.jpg
I have an issue with that "icon." The Holy Spirit may only be depicted as a dove when he appeared as a dove, and a dove can NOT be used to represent the Holy Spirit outside of those cirumstances where he appeared as such.

[Theophorus]

Ethiopian icons are similar to Coptic icons and are actually kind of similar to Celtic icons as well. I really want to write a Celtic Icon of St. Patrick.

Here is an OO (Ethiopian) cross i have.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_1.jpg

It opens into this. I am told that in the EO tradition, the icon of St. george always accompanies the icon of the Theotokos. The icon on the bottom right I am unsure of, but I am guessing possibly Isaiah.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_2.jpg

Here is an image from the book of Kells (Celtic).

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/kells.jpg

[copticorthodoxy]

Here is Consecration of St. Mary & St. George Coptic Church, Staten Island, NY (Set) (http://flickr.com/photos/sleman/sets/72157594525847950/)

The bishop here consecrate the icons due to the Coptic Orthodox tradition with the holy oil

http://flickr.com/photos/sleman/384407995/in/set-72157594525847950/


http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gifhttp://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gifhttp://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

[Photini]

http://www.theotokos.org/Images/OtherIcons/TheHolySpirit.jpg
This looks like part of an Icon. Maybe from the Baptism of Christ?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Here is an OO (Ethiopian) cross i have.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_1.jpg

It opens into this. I am told that in the EO tradition, the icon of St. george always accompanies the icon of the Theotokos. The icon on the bottom right I am unsure of, but I am guessing possibly Isaiah.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_2.jpg

Here is an image from the book of Kells (Celtic).

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/kells.jpg
I have NEVER heard that the icon of St. George is always accompanied by that of the Theotokos.

[Theophorus]

I have NEVER heard that the icon of St. George is always accompanied by that of the Theotokos.

It's the other way around. I was told it is an Ethiopian tradition and probably applies to diptychs. But diptychs would indicate a favored arrangement.

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon69.JPG

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon66.JPG

[minasoliman]

I think in whatever case, so many Orthodox Christians, particularly in the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions, have such love for the Theotokos that their patron saint would be accompanied to the Theotokos. St. George for example is a very beloved saint, so it's not strange to see him along with the Theotokos.

I have one with a modern saint of ours named St. Abd el Maseeh el Minihry with the Theotokos with him.

God bless.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It's the other way around. I was told it is an Ethiopian tradition and probably applies to diptychs. But diptychs would indicate a favored arrangement.

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon69.JPG

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon66.JPG
That might be an Ethiopian tradition, applied to diptychs, but it is not an Eastern Orthodox tradition.

[Photini]

It's the other way around. I was told it is an Ethiopian tradition and probably applies to diptychs. But diptychs would indicate a favored arrangement.

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon69.JPG

http://www.hamillgallery.com/ETHIOPIAN/EthiopianIcons6/EthiopianIcon66.JPG
Those are absolutely beautiful! Are those yours? What a blessing to have such lovely Icons in your home. :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

Here is an OO (Ethiopian) cross i have.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_1.jpg

It opens into this. I am told that in the EO tradition, the icon of St. george always accompanies the icon of the Theotokos. The icon on the bottom right I am unsure of, but I am guessing possibly Isaiah.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/EO_cross_2.jpg

Here is an image from the book of Kells (Celtic).

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/kells.jpg
Can you see the similarities between Coptic/Ethiopian icons and the Book of Kells?

[Theophorus]

Can you see the similarities between Coptic/Ethiopian icons and the Book of Kells?

Definitely. And though the illumination of their icons my not show the influence, the carvings and castings (I assume the method) certainly do.

This is a poor example of the ubiquitous Celtic knot.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/Etho-cross.jpg

[Theophorus]

Those are absolutely beautiful! Are those yours? What a blessing to have such lovely Icons in your home. :)

Just the cross is mine. The carvings for their icons catch my eye as much as the icon itself. I am curious if more than one person is involved, or whether both the wood work and the writing is done by the same individual.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Definitely. And though the illumination of their icons my not show the influence, the carvings and castings (I assume the method) certainly do.

This is a poor example of the ubiquitous Celtic knot.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t99/chopin139/Etho-cross.jpg
You can't see a clear influence in their illumination of icons?