Breathtaking Icon of St. Herman of Alaska

[Moros]

Or, at least I think so. Last thread started for a while, I promise. :wave:

Love the colours..

http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v13/blackshirt/herman1.jpg

[Michael the Iconographer]

We have an icon of St. Herman similar to that in my church. The one I am painting of St. Herman right now is a little more simple, no ornate background and he is holding a prayer rope in his left hand and blessing with his right.

[Moros]

I read earlier that St. Herman wasn't a priest, so he didn't bless, and that people instead venerate his hand-cross?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Hmmm, you are right. Good thing I only have the drawing done, I will have to make some minor changes to it.

[Moros]

Some other icons of Herman. Notice he is not blessing in any of them.

[Eusebios]

Beautiful Icon. We have two at our parish, but neither is as vibrant as this one!
Peace,
Eusebios.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Some other icons of Herman. Notice he is not blessing in any of them.

Glad you pointed that out to me. I really didn't know that he was not a priest. Priest monks can still be depicted as monks, but had never noticed that he didn't bless in any of the icons of him. Good thing too I have only completed the very basic stage of laying down the line drawing and base colors, therefor it will not be hard at all to fix the icon.

[countrymousenc]

Bruncvik, that is a beautiful icon of St. Herman. Thanks for sharing it with us! :)

[twosid]

Is he a singer as well and standing in front of his gold record suspended by fishing line behind him? Is it a solid gold sombrero that he has tossed back off his head for the picture? Is it a UFO approaching from behind that was going to fast and turned at a 90 degree angle to its normal flight path to create the most parasite drag possible in order to stop before running over St. Herman? Please learn me which of these guesses is correct and if none......learn me the answer. Thanks.

[Orthosdoxa]

It's called a nimbus. Kinda like halo - showing holiness.

[Moros]

Is he a singer as well and standing in front of his gold record suspended by fishing line behind him? Is it a solid gold sombrero that he has tossed back off his head for the picture? Is it a UFO approaching from behind that was going to fast and turned at a 90 degree angle to its normal flight path to create the most parasite drag possible in order to stop before running over St. Herman? Please learn me which of these guesses is correct and if none......learn me the answer. Thanks.

That's quite disrespectful.

[The Prokeimenon!]

Dear Twosid,
Welcome to the Ancient Way!

As a smart-alek myself, I can certainly appreciate humor. However, these Saints and their Icons are very Holy to us Orthodox. So, out of respect for us and for those Holy men and women, please tone it down. Thanks.

And, like Anonykat said, it's called a nimbus. It's placed behind the head of Holy men and women in their Icons. If you look at an Icon of the Last Supper, you'll notice that everyone has a nimbus except Judas. In Icons with Christ, the Apostles, and the Pharisees, the Pharisees are a missing nimbuses also.

Moses

[Moros]

In Icons with Christ, the Apostles, and the Pharisees, the Pharisees are a missing nimbuses also.

Do you have an example of an icon with pharisees? I haven't seen one.

[Rilian]

Did the icon come from this site (http://www.lukedingman.com/icons2.htm)? I ran across it a while ago. I really like the one of St. Elizabeth.

[Photini]

Wow Rilian...thanks for that link. I really like the Icon of St. Elijah on his fiery Chariot.
The one of St. Seraphim of Sarov is nice too.

[Moros]

Did the icon come from this site (http://www.lukedingman.com/icons2.htm)? I ran across it a while ago. I really like the one of St. Elizabeth.

Nice link! I found the Icon randomly though on Google image search.

[Photini]

The oil paintings on that site are breath taking.

[twosid]

That's quite disrespectful.
Thats not helpful. That tells me you are unhappy with what I've said and not why.

[twosid]

As a smart-alek myself, I can certainly appreciate humor. However, these Saints and their Icons are very Holy to us Orthodox. So, out of respect for us and for those Holy men and women, please tone it down. Thanks.
Thanks for the explanation and it was not my intent to offend so......sorry to those I've offended. That brings up a question. How can an icon be Holy?

[Orthodox Andrew]

St. John of Damascus: In Defense of Icons, c. 730

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html

[The Prokeimenon!]

How can an icon be Holy?

Icons are Holy in much the same way that Bibles are Holy. The Bible isn't Holy because of the paper and ink, but rather because of the Truth that it contains. Similarly, we reverence Icons not because of the wood or paint, but because they contain images of Holy men and women, Christ, the Theotokos (that's Mary, the God-Bearer), and important events in the life of the Church. They are the words of God in pictures, just as the Bible is the words of God in print.

Moses

[Eusebios]

I concur with Moses The Black on this. It is first and foremost the nature of the persons and events depicted that make icons holy. Interestingly in regard to MTB's comparison of icons to the bible is dead on. We venerate the Gospel just as we venerate other icons. The paper and ink are just that, paper and ink, it is the Truth contained within and it's pointing to Christ The Word that make it worthy of veneration. Likewise, it is not the wood, paint or even the artistic excellence which we venerate in icons, rather the Truth that they point to, again the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ alive and active in His saints which cause icons tto be holy and thus worthu of veneration.
Secondly, icons are written (or painted) in a very prayerful environment. There are specific prayers prayed when starting on an icon. During the writing the writer prays the Jesus Prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner." Icons are then generally blessed by a priest who prays as well as blessing it.
Finally, icons are holy because the Church has at all times affirmed thier worth and veneration.
I know that there are others here (hint hint Michael ;) ) who can give much more complete information and Andreas' link likely explains the position of the Church Fathers quite nicely.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Michael the Iconographer]

Ok, so I have been really slow to respond to this question. How can icons be Holy? There is not a simple answer to this question. First, I will pose the question, why do you ask if they are holy? Do you not carry arround pictures of your spouse and loved ones in your wallet and keep them on the walls of your house? If you do, then how can you question the Churches keeping icons of Christ, the Theotokus and the Saints in our homes and our Churches. St. John of Damascus does a much better job of explaining this than I do http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html.

I am offering as my response my as yet unfinished essay on "Why Orthodox Churches are full of Icons." Hopefully it will shed a little light on the matter. It is a long essay, so I will post it in two parts.

Why are Orthodox Churches “so full of Icons”?

My first experience in an Orthodox Church was visiting a Russian Chapel in Darmstadt, Germany. It was a small Orthodox chapel which had been built by the Czar of Russia for his daughter who married the Grand Duke of Hessen, Germany. I was struck with awe at the fact the small church was full of iconography and there was a wall separating the church from the altar. I asked the priest how the people attending liturgy in the church could know what was going on if this wall was in front of the altar and his response was “they can hear the prayers being offered”. Several years later I was in the process of converting from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, which included a year long stop in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I took my Roman Catholic parents to visit the Byzantine Catholic Church in Columbus, Ohio and
they asked the same question I’d asked while in Germany: what was the wall of icons doing in front of the altar and why was the church so full of icons?

The answer to this question at first appears simple but is actually quite full of tradition, history and scripture. Orthodox Christian Churches have not always been full of icons as they are today. The development of iconography and of the style of the Orthodox Church has gone hand in hand with the development of Orthodoxy itself. The churches existing before the Edict of Milan, the Roman declaration legalizing Christianity, were very simple and had very simple “iconography.” This was a historical necessity as these churches were simple and hidden and needed to remain that way to avoid persecution. Some of these “catacomb churches” show primitive and intricate iconography, as is the case with the cave churches from the Goreme Valley in Cappadocia. Another early church, St. Serge Church in Maaloula, Syria, which dates from the early 4th century has a solid wall with a simple open door in the place where the iconostasis would later develop. While the iconstasis would be a much later development, by the time of the Iconoclast Heresy in the 8th-9th centuries there already existed Orthodox churches full of beautiful iconography.

To the non-Orthodox Christian the presence of the Iconostasis is seemingly foreign and obtrusive. However, it is there to strengthen both the communion of saints and the call they give to contemplate the eternal and as a solid demarcation of the sacred space of the altar from the rest of the church. The iconostasis is able to do this in a way which is inviting and yet firm enough to remind us of the extra reverence needed for the holy things and the holy spaces. This need for the reverence for sacred space is something which has been lost in Western Christianity and has had devastating consequences for those who are not Orthodox. The development of the iconostasis would occur in Russia over many centuries as the faithful brought in their own personal icons to hang in the churches on what was originally a wall or latice screen which separated the sanctuary from the rest of the church. Gradually the icons built up in rows until a full wall of icons was in place. Slowly the rows of icons would take an organized form to give meaning to the place that each icon held on the iconstasis. This development of the classical Russian iconostasis was not fully complete until the middle ages and then slowly spread to the rest of the Orthodox world. From this we can see that historically the placing of icons in churches is a movement which was begun and continued by the Orthodox faithful. Instead of being something which has been forced on the faithful by the Church the placing of sacred images in churches is an event of the faithful and by the faithful and dates back to the Old Testament.

While the presence of icons in our churches is a movement by and of the Orthodox Christian faithful and dates back to the Old Testament, this movement was not always easy or accepted by all Christians. By the 8th century there had begun an Iconoclast controversy which would plague the church for the better part of a century. The iconoclasts opposed the use of holy images based partly on the second commandment, but also from the point of view which says the spiritual is far superior to the material and therefore a material image can’t possibly be sacred. There were many powerful influences on the iconoclasts including the Moslems and a number of the Byzantine Emperors. Orthodoxy tends to not define dogmas until it becomes absolutely necessary for the good of the Church to do so and as a result the responses to the iconoclast views were not yet fully developed in the 8th century. It took the writings of St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore Studite as well as an ecumenical council to solve the problem. It actually took two councils to solve the problem as their was a first council which agreed with the iconoclasts and then several decades later a second true council was called to refute the first council. It was only after this second council that iconoclasm began to die off. Because of this iconoclasts heresy the church developed a stronger belief in the veneration of icons and a stronger understanding of why we are able to venerate them. We celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy as a reminder of the triumph of Orthodoxy over iconoclasm.

Why is Iconoclasm such a problematic heresy in the first place? Does it really matter if we have iconostasis and icons in our churches? There are many Christian denominations that seemingly get along fine this way. To deny that icons are permitable and are to be venerated is to not understand the nature of the words veneration and adoration, to not understand the dual nature of Christ, and to not understand the Old Testament. If you say God alone can be worshipped, you must differentiate between adoration which can be given to God alone and veneration which can be given to holy things. If however, you say we may not venerate holy icons because the spiritual is superior to the material and thus an icon made of wood and paint can’t be sacred, then you must remember that the uncircumscribed Son of God took on human flesh and in doing so sanctified all matter. To deny this is to deny the Divinity of Christ and the incarnation. Denial of the incarnation is a denial of the very basis of Christianity itself. Finally, to say having icons of the saints in our churches is to place the emphasis in the wrong place is to forget that the whole reason we honor the saints is because of the witness they bore to Christ. St. Nicholas takes a prominent place on the iconostasis not because of who St. Nicholas was, but rather because of the extreme witness he bore to Christ. When we honor St. Nicholas in the end we are really honoring Christ. Thus iconoclasm really ends up being a denial of Christ in one way or another.

The Old Testament is a source for the use of Iconography in Orthodox Christian Churches which is often overlooked. Many non-Orthodox theologians and ministers see the Old Testament as being iconoclast. The Third Commandment commands man to not make graven images of creation and fall down before them and the book of Exodus also tells man that he can make no image of God for man has never seen the Father. However, a deeper study of the Old Testament will reveal that contrary to the iconoclast claims, the Old Testament commands man to make a beautiful temple in which to worship God. God did in fact command man to make images to be placed on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temple which was built by Solomon. Two cherubim each 10 cubits high were placed in the inner sanctuary of the temple, each overlaid with gold and both the inner and outer sanctuaries of the temple were carved with palm trees, flowers and cherubim (1 Kings 6:23-35). Exodus chapters 35-37 discuss the intricate detail which was put into the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, including the two gold cherubim which sat on top of the ark. These things were done in order to facilitate the adoration of the then unseen God by the Israelites. They could not make images of the face of Christ for the Word had not yet become flesh, and yet God still commanded them to make holy images to adorn his temple and his ark. The Old Testament is not iconoclast, it simply insists that adoration be given to God alone and that veneration be given only to those sacred things which God ordained.

Just as the new law changed because of the Incarnation, so did the scope of the 2nd commandment change. “And the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Before the incarnation is was impossible to depict the Logos in images as God is an incorporeal spirit and the Son had yet to take on human flesh. To make an image of the invisible God is idolatry and the worship of a graven image. With the incarnation matter is no longer corrupt by nature, as the invisible God had taken on human flesh and had redeemed creation. If the incarnation was not proof enough of this, Christ proved this to us again at the Transfiguration when he gave the Apostles a glimpse of his Heavenly glory while still in his human flesh. He further showed the change in scope of the 2nd commandment when he pressed the Holy Napkin to his face and sent it to King Abgar of Edyssa with his image imprinted on it. Upon seeing the Holy Napkin and having faith Abgar was cured of his leprosy. These actions are hardly coming from a God who is offended by the veneration of Holy Images, but rather are coming from God who understands the place of the veneration of Holy Images. The early church knew and understood these events for what they were meant to be.

The Fathers and the councils also had much to say about the use of iconography in Orthodox Churches. The earliest Christian defense of iconography was that of the icons use as a teaching tool. Through different periods in the history of the Church people have not always been educated and literate. Thus a church full of icons served as a method to teach the Gospel to the masses. The images of the Saints and Feasts were preferential to the plain cross because with their colors the icons effectively communicated to the masses what was otherwise unreadable. However, these arguments did not hold any weight with the iconoclasts and so the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, was called in 787 to answer the iconoclast charges. In putting a theological end to the heresy the council outlined the reasons why icon veneration is possible and commendable. It’s decisions were not fully put into place, however, until 843 when the Empress Theodora took power and restored the proper veneration of icons. The council took seriously the charges of the iconoclasts because the iconoclasts saw all matter as corrupt and wanted a religion free of all material things. The fathers of the council saw this denial of the sanctity of matter as a denial of the Incarnation of Christ and tied it to the earlier debates which the Church had over the nature of Christ’s person. Thus the eventual Triumph of Orthodoxy was not merely a triumph of sacred images over those who opposed them, but a further profession of the Incarnation of Christ and the salvation of all creation.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Among the Church Fathers, Sts. John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite were the most vocal in their defense and support of icon veneration. St. John wrote in the late 7th/early 8th centuries and discussed in several treatises the nature of adoration vs. the nature of veneration. He used Platonic philosophy to discuss the nature of type and prototype and explain that veneration shown to the prototype is passed on to the type. Thus this veneration is not idolatry. Further, St. John discussed the nature of the Incarnation in regard to the 2nd commandment. St. John’s conclusion was that if salvation could come through the Holy Mountain of Calvary and the Cross, and if we were instructed in the Old Testament to give honor to the holy things, and we give honor to the Gospel book and the Chalice, then it is proper and just to give honor to icons. “Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in worship of images, honoring God and his friends and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit.” (St. John of Damascus, On Holy Images, pp 10-17).

St. Theodore the Studite wrote in the 9th century and further explored the veneration of the icon in Orthodox worship. Theodore was the abbot of a monastery and spent a great deal of his work in relation to iconography reviewing the earlier arguments and explaining them in further detail. In 3 treatises St. Theodore argued that if Christ truly had a human nature then he must be able to be portrayed like any other human being. In the view of St. Theodore to deny this truth is a serious error which alienates oneself from God as much as any other heresy.

As mentioned earlier, the practical reasons for the use of Icons in Orthodox life are as a teaching tool. As a window into Heaven, the icons allow us a physical means to gaze upon eternity. In doing this, the icons are merely an extension of the idea of the communion of Saints. The icons are there to remind us of the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures and of the presence of our brothers and sisters the saints as well as the whole of the Heavenly host each time we pray at liturgy. The colors in the icons, the various different clothing styles, the scenes in the festal icons, the icons of the cherubim and seraphim and those of the Theotokus all serve to teach Orthodox Christians about different aspects of their faith. The church understands that we tend to forget those things which we are not constantly reminded of. In seeing the various icons on a regular basis Orthodox Christians become comfortable with them and begin to recognize the importance of them in the role of our salvation. In this role of education, the uniform style of iconography does much to assist with its teaching function. Western Christianity has many, many different styles in its art and it is often very difficult to know who the subject of a painting or sculpture is without looking at the artist’s inscription. I remember an experience in Roman Seminary where we spent a large amount of time contemplating a painting. After a long debate we finally realized the scene was a depiction of the Wisdom of Solomon. This would not have been the case with an icon of the Wisdom of Solomon because of the uniform style of the icon.

Orthodox Churches are full of icons in order to form a bridge between the spiritual world and the faithful. Attending liturgy every Sunday the icons become very familiar, and in doing so they teach us, comfort us and help us keep our minds focused on the liturgy itself. This familiarity helps establish an ease with praying before the icons and allows the Orthodox Christian’s mind to be brought to the eternal every time he sees an icon. It also serves to remind the faithful of the presence of the angels and saints at the liturgy and remind us that we are not praying on our own but rather in communion with all of the Kingdom of God. Our Churches are full of icons to remind us of the Incarnation and the role that various individuals have played in salvation history and they are full of icons because the Incarnation has made it possible in the first place.

NEW ENDING?
While there are a lot of scriptural and patristic reasons for having icons, the practical reason for having icons in our churches is the teaching function which they serve as. Orthodoxy refers to as icons as “Windows into Heaven” because icons form a bridge between the spiritual world and the faithful. I often think the term “Windows into Heaven” is lacking though, because it implies that we are simply looking into Heaven, as if this were a one way stagnant process. I have thought about saying the icon was similar to a two way radio but that implies that we are communicating with Heaven from a far distance, which is not the case. The icon is much more like a love letter or better yet a face to face conversation with God himself. When done properly, the prayer before the icon becomes dynamic, even transforming. As we pray in front of icons we are taught about the saint or feast they represent, but in a much deeper way we are quietly called to a closer communion with God and all that is eternal. The philosopher Peter Kreeft once said that orthodoxy begets orthopraxy and orthopraxy begets orthodoxy. If we believe correctly we will begin to live correctly and if we live correctly it will teach us to believe correctly. I remember a time at a workshop when I prayed in front of the icon of the Trinity for hours and slowly the icon started to speak to me about the love of each person of the Trinity for each other. The process of icon painting will over the life of the iconographer bring about a serious movement to deeper holiness. Likewise, a lifetime of devout and frequent prayer in front of holy icons will do the same for the Orthodox faithful. Everything about the icon is there to teach us about Christianity and make us more comfortable with it. The colors in the icons, the various different clothing styles, the scenes in the festal icons, the icons of the cherubim and seraphim and those of the Theotokus all serve to teach Orthodox Christians about different aspects of their faith. The church understands that we tend to forget those things which we are not constantly reminded of. In seeing the various icons on a regular basis Orthodox Christians become comfortable with them and begin to recognize the importance of them in the role of our salvation. In this role of education, the uniform style of iconography does much to assist with its teaching function. Western Christianity has many, many different styles in its art and it is often very difficult to know who the subject of a painting or sculpture is without looking at the artist’s inscription. I remember an experience in Roman Seminary where we spent a large amount of time contemplating a painting. After a long debate we finally realized the scene was a depiction of the Wisdom of Solomon. This would not have been the case with an icon of the Wisdom of Solomon because of the uniform style of the icon. Simply put, the icon is both a theological and spiritual teaching tool.

[Kripost]

Perhaps you should put all that in a FAQ or something. You do seem to get lots of enquiries about icons from non-Orthodox.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I may do that. That would not be a bad idea for the web page that I am eventually going to set up on my own. I will keep the page I have with comeandseeicons, but I think I need to set up my own page. But first, I have to finish that essay and submit it to WORD magazine for printing. I told Fr. John (the editor) that it would be done 2 years ago. I guess I am on Orthodox time! :D

[Michael the Iconographer]

To the mods, could I start an Iconography FAQ as a sticky post?

[Eusebios]

Michael,
Wonderful stuff. I think a sticky would be great!
I found this to be most excellent:
f however, you say we may not venerate holy icons because the spiritual is superior to the material and thus an icon made of wood and paint can’t be sacred, then you must remember that the uncircumscribed Son of God took on human flesh and in doing so sanctified all matter. To deny this is to deny the Divinity of Christ and the incarnation. Denial of the incarnation is a denial of the very basis of Christianity itself.
This sums it up so well.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow: