Dangers of imitation icons...

[St. Columcille]

I thought I would start a post regarding the dangers of imitation icons.

The discussion generated in the forum regarding resources for good icons and also to avoid the bad ones. As such, I own three bad ones from Monastery Icons. Fr. Nelson's article that is linked to the bad icon store "Monastery Icons" recommends not purchasing from them. I agree with his assessment to not buy them, but do not understand what specific dangers in keeping those fake 'icons' are.

I recieved three of them as gifts. Granted they have Western Saints, I own two of them St. Francis of Assisi and St. Joan of Arc, but also have St. Patrick.

If the artwork contained on these is heretical, then it should be visible to detect the error. Should I keep them or throw them away? I am of the opinion that i do not need to throw them away and do not see any potential danger in keeping them. They are not complete, because they lack the due process, but how many people have a car decal of a fish or a picture depicting something religious that is decorative. They are not icons, but you don't necessarily throw it away just because it was made in China. As such, if I treat these gifts as just a decorative piece rather than an icon, I see no spiritual dangers. I therefore am submitting this inquiry so I can better understand what dangers Fr. Nelson or other Eastern Orthodox percieve. What if I get a hand-painted icon from an Oriental Orthodox iconographer? What if the hand-painted icon comes from an Eastern Catholic iconographer? What are the boundaries?

 

[Protoevangel]

The danger is spiritual, not something visible to the human eye.

Once an Orthodox priest blesses them, any dangers will have been averted. You can then venerate them as proper Icons.

 

[gzt]

As long as the icon conforms to the canons of iconography and it has been blessed in the church, it shouldn't be harmful to you. Given the choice, don't buy from them, and if anybody wants to give you an icon, instruct them not to buy from them.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Thats a good question. I've received some icons that do not really follow the rules of Orthodox iconography (or at least I don't think they do... I'm no expert) but they have sentimental value to me because I got them at friends or family members funerals, marriages, etc.. You know, those little cards with a picture of Jesus or the Theotokos on them often painted in Renaissance style without the proper halo and such. I hang them next to my icons. I'm not sure if they actually count as "icons" though.

 

[MKJ]

I feel a bit dumb, but what exactly is an imitation icon, and how is it dangerous.

 

[choirfiend]

ITs mostly stuff from one vendor, and it's because the vendor is into cult-ish new-age hindu garbage and makes "icons" out of ppl like MLK Jr. There's a lot of spiritual danger with such creepy folks.

 

[buzuxi02]

I feel a bit dumb, but what exactly is an imitation icon, and how is it dangerous.

Hippolytus used the term 'counterfeit image' to a group of heretics who claimed thay had pictures of Christ painted by Pilate.

A counterfeit image is any icon created by a sect who groups them with philosophers, eastern gurus, pagans, idols, etc. A counterfeit image is one where a too naturalistic style is used basing the image on an actor or model posing for it. On the other end if the icon is too mechanical or uses obscure colors. Basically images that fall far from canonical norms.

 

[ikonographics]

This reminds me of an article I read some years ago about a woman here in Greece who was having problems and visited a witch who gave her an icon - and Orthodox icon. The icon could be opened up at the back and the woman was told under no circumstances to open it. From the moment the icon entered her home things went from bad to worse. Eventually she took the icon to a priest and he opened it up to find various occult objects in it. He burned the icon and the objects.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

The danger is spiritual, not something visible to the human eye.

Once an Orthodox priest blesses them, any dangers will have been averted.

There's a lot of spiritual danger.

This reminds me of an article I read some years ago about a woman here in Greece who was having problems and visited a witch who gave her an icon - and Orthodox icon. The icon could be opened up at the back and the woman was told under no circumstances to open it. From the moment the icon entered her home things went from bad to worse. Eventually she took the icon to a priest and he opened it up to find various occult objects in it. He burned the icon and the objects.

That's a good story. I believe in it. I believe also in what Protoevangel said.

Isn't it true that while what we can see might be a reason for a priest not to bless it, what we see alone can never make an object an icon?

 

[Christos Anesti]

I love this Icon and it's also a miracle working Icon. It came to my Church once . Yet it appears to portray God the Father on a cloud up on top. Is that who that is? I know the canons do not allow portrayls of God the Father. It also appears to portray the Theotokos and Christ in an overly realistic as to opposed iconic manner. How do we explain Icons like this through which the grace of God flows but that apparently don't follow the canons? Maybe that isn't really God the Father though and i'm just misunderstanding it?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Oh yeah. I should have noted that this is the Wonderworking Sitka Icon of the Mother of God. I heard that a women was healed from cancer while asking the intercession of the Theotokos in front of it.

 

[Joshua G.]

I've heard a lot of explanations about that icon (I venerated it in person too!).

There are a few things to mention when considering this apparent 'problem':

1) It's good to follow the norms the Church provides us and not be innovators. So when we have a choice, we choose those icons or prayers or practices that sit withing the norms of Church praxis. THese norms and "rules" come out of the collective experience and wisdom of the Church which has built up over 2000 years of Saint-making (to put it crassly) and can't be imitated with a simple think-tak COuncil that rewrites the rules drastically.
2) That said, sometimes there are exceptions to these norms and rules. We don't use them to set precedence necessarily. We simply accept them as mysterious outliers realizing that even our own norms can never truly capture the ways in which God extends His grace to His creation THROUGH his creation.
3) On this particular icon, I have heard (perhaps from Michael the Iconographer???) that the Man in the clouds is actually an OT archetype of Christ from the account of Jacob's Ladder, so it is not the father, is biblical and (assuming what my foggy memory is telling me is true... bit of a stretch) would NOT be uncanonical iconography.
4) But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is the Father... in which case, no, it does not follow the norms of iconography but... it is obviously blessed by God and surely written by God through holy hands.

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

To the OP:

I was recently told by my priest that Monastery Icons are gnostics and not even Christians in the broad sense

With that said, I would agree with what gzt said. Don't buy them (I used to look at the catalogue they send to my house -unsolicited- Now they go straight to the vertical file cabinet ) hold on to the one's you have and ask your priest what you should do with them. Certainly make sure they are blessed.

 

[Christos Anesti]

That said, sometimes there are exceptions to these norms and rules. We don't use them to set precedence necessarily. We simply except them as mysterious outlyers realizing that even our own norms can never truly capture the ways in which God extends His grace to His creation THROUGH his creation.

Thanks for the response. I found it informative.

 

[Protoevangel]

I love this Icon and it's also a miracle working Icon. It came to my Church once . Yet it appears to portray God the Father on a cloud up on top. Is that who that is? I know the canons do not allow portrayls of God the Father. It also appears to portray the Theotokos and Christ in an overly realistic as to opposed iconic manner. How do we explain Icons like this through which the grace of God flows but that apparently don't follow the canons? Maybe that isn't really God the Father though and i'm just misunderstanding it?

To follow-up Joshua's excellent post, and perhaps put a slightly different angle to the subject, I would like to mention that I have heard it said that God and His Grace are not bound by our canons, but we are. The canons to not attempt to declare what God can and cannot do, but they give us rules to follow to ensure that we are properly sharing the truths of the Faith, and living the Faith to the fullest.