Icon of God the Father in the Catholic Church

[Athanasias]

I have no idea if this is true or not. But I have heard that EO's generally do not have icons depicting God the Father. I have heard this but I could be very wrong. Is this the case? If so why?


I know sometimes Catholic artwork depicts God the Father or the Trinity and we have images of the Father in some of our Icons because to us in our understanding we have a somewhat description of him in Daniel 7:9. At least that is our take. Just curious if this is a rumor about EO's or not. Thanks again. Not trying to debate just wandering.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

 

[~Anastasia~]

Subscribing.






(I want to hear what others say. I was first told simply as you heard, that we don't depict God the Father. I was later told by someone else who I think is very knowledgeable that it is actually possible to depict the Ancient of Days - an old man - AS LONG AS the lettering does NOT SAY "the Father" because he said we can understand Christ as the Ancient of Days. Further, he said this was even possible with an icon depicting the Holy Spirit as light or a dove, Christ as a Child, AND the Ancient of Days - as long as not labeled "Father". I would like to hear what others say, because the Trinity aspect seems confusing and contradictory to canon - but it MAY BE possible since icons sometimes depict multiple realities - like John the Baptist with his head, holding his severed head)

 

[Athanasias]

Subscribing.






(I want to hear what others say. I was first told simply as you heard, that we don't depict God the Father. I was later told by someone else who I think is very knowledgeable that it is actually possible to depict the Ancient of Days - an old man - AS LONG AS the lettering does NOT SAY "the Father" because he said we can understand Christ as the Ancient of Days. Further, he said this was even possible with an icon depicting the Holy Spirit as light or a dove, Christ as a Child, AND the Ancient of Days - as long as not labeled "Father". I would like to hear what others say, because the Trinity aspect seems confusing and contradictory to canon - but it MAY BE possible since icons sometimes depict multiple realities - like John the Baptist with his head, holding his severed head)

Thanks Kylissa. The Catholic view in contrast tends to see the ancient of days as the Father and distinct from the Son via Daniels passage

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
[14] And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,"
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

 

[prodromos]

The Russians have canons which do not permit the Father to be depicted in iconography but I don't believe those canons are universally accepted throughout the Orthodox Church. I do know that many are sympathetic to the reasons behind the Russian canons but there are also a good number of ancient icons depicting the Holy Trinity as Father, Son and Dove. I prefer Rublev's Trinity myself, also known as the Hospitality of Abraham, as there is a lot more theology packed into the symbolism of the three angels

In this icon, the Father is on the left side from our perspective, with the Holy Spirit on the right and the Son in the middle. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit defer to the Father and the silhouette of the Father and the Holy Spirit forms the shape of a chalice within which Christ sits. I don't recall the meaning behind the coloring of their respective robes except that Christ is depicted in the usual coloring of the royal red/purple covered by the common blue which symbolises His divinity clothed in our humanity.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks Kylissa. The Catholic view in contrast tends to see the ancient of days as the Father and distinct from the Son via Daniels passage

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
[14] And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,"
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Thanks Athanasius.

I should perhaps clarify one thing. I don't mean to say that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Ancient of Days is Christ (I actually don't know if they do or they don't - personally I had taken it to be the Father since He interacts with Christ in that passage iirc, so I guess now I'll have to find out).

What I was told is that if the Ancient of Days is depicted as an old man, He must be understood to be seen as Christ, because it is Christ we have seen and is the reason we can portray Him in icons. We have not seen God the Father so we cannot portray Him.

But I will defer. I actually thought the Russian tradition was slightly less strict than others, but I may be wrong. My knowledge of iconography is still very limited.

 

[Cappadocious]

The Ancient of Days could only be a typological depiction like the Hospitality of Abraham. In other words, it is not a depiction of the Father as such.

Christ is revealed as the image and depiction of God, so it would seem improper to depict, in a concrete fashion, other things as images of God, especially given the full picture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Ancient of Days could only be a typological depiction like the Hospitality of Abraham. In other words, it is not a depiction of the Father as such.

Christ is revealed as the image and depiction of God, so it would seem improper to depict, in a concrete fashion, other things as images of God, especially given the full picture.

If I understand you correctly, this makes the most sense to me actually.

(My posts above - I hope I made clear - are "what I've heard" and not my own opinion, since I think the question was "what does the EO Church teach?")

Cappadocious, if you don't mind, and if I was clear enough in what I repeated that I'd been told, can you tell me if those things are in accord with what you're saying here? Perhaps that's what they meant, that the Ancient of Days was typological, and they were very clear that it must not be labeled "the Father".

But I'm less sure about whether they are layering Christ over that somehow, or just commenting on the fact that we make icons of the Divine in human form because we've seen Christ in the flesh. I'm a little confused on that ...

Thanks for your post, either way. It's helpful to me.

 

[Cappadocious]

I don't agree with the Russian idea that the Ancient of Days just IS Christ. But if the Ancient of Days was supposed to be a depiction of the Father, then it must be a depiction of Christ. Similarly, in the Burning Bush icon, you find Christ: He is the Word of God.


So as for depictions of the Ancient of Days, I think they should be understood typologically like the Hospitality of Abraham. The angels are not depictions of the Trinity; rather, they stand for the members of the Trinity. The Ancient of Days is thus not a depiction of the Father.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I have no idea if this is true or not. But I have heard that EO's generally do not have icons depicting God the Father. I have heard this but I could be very wrong. Is this the case? If so why?


I know sometimes Catholic artwork depicts God the Father or the Trinity and we have images of the Father in some of our Icons because to us in our understanding we have a somewhat description of him in Daniel 7:9. At least that is our take. Just curious if this is a rumor about EO's or not. Thanks again. Not trying to debate just wandering.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

This reminded me of a fresco I studied this past semester, it's not Eastern Orthodox, but nevertheless: Masaccio's Holy Trinity is quite beautiful.

 

[Meowzltov]

I absolutely detest artistic representations of the Father. God the Father has no form, and when we give Him one, we are teaching confusion.

 

[prodromos]

This reminded me of a fresco I studied this past semester, it's not Eastern Orthodox, but nevertheless: Masaccio's Holy Trinity is quite beautiful.

Definitely not Orthodox. There is no way the Father would be depicted with the blue outer robe covering the red inner robe since this is a reference to Christ's divinity being clothed in our humanity. You can also see the impact statues have had on the depiction of the halos, having lost the symbolism of uncreated light radiating from the heads of the holy ones, they have become solid discs floating behind their heads symbolising what exactly?

 

[Cappadocious]

I absolutely detest artistic representations of the Father. God the Father has no form

What about this one:

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't agree with the Russian idea that the Ancient of Days just IS Christ. But if the Ancient of Days was supposed to be a depiction of the Father, then it must be a depiction of Christ. Similarly, in the Burning Bush icon, you find Christ: He is the Word of God.


So as for depictions of the Ancient of Days, I think they should be understood typologically like the Hospitality of Abraham. The angels are not depictions of the Trinity; rather, they stand for the members of the Trinity. The Ancient of Days is thus not a depiction of the Father.

Thank you, Cappadocious. Perhaps my friend is of the Russian tradition, then. I hadn't realized they equated the Ancient of Days with Christ, and I'm glad if I'm hearing that is not a Church-wide dogma. I haven't had a chance to look into it. And I can certainly be wrong, especially since I decided otherwise for myself years ago with very little knowledge.

But thank you. This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Meowzltov]

What about this one:

That's not an icon of the Father, but of Jesus. Jesus is a human being as well as God, so I have no problems with icons of Jesus.

 

[Cappadocious]

An icon of Jesus is an icon of the Father!

 

[Meowzltov]

An icon of Jesus is an icon of the Father!

No, they are different persons. That is standard Trinitarianism. Unless you are a Modalist, you should understand that.

 

[Cappadocious]

I didn't say that the Father and the Son are the same Person. Rather, the Son is the image, icon, form, of the Father. So an icon of Jesus is an icon of the Father. That's straight out of the Scriptures, the Councils, etc. It's straight up St. Athanasius, too.

 

[prodromos]

I didn't say that the Father and the Son are the same Person. Rather, the Son is the image, icon, form, of the Father. So an icon of Jesus is an icon of the Father. That's straight out of the Scriptures, the Councils, etc. It's straight up St. Athanasius, too.

Speaking of icons, where on earth did you find those carrots in your avatar? My Mum used to get a lot of 'anatomically correct' carrots in our garden. They would split into two large branches with a third smaller one in between, but I've never come across anything remotely like your avatar. That is awesome!

 

[Athanasias]

This is my favorite Icon of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[Cappadocious]

Speaking of icons, where on earth did you find those carrots in your avatar? My Mum used to get a lot of 'anatomically correct' carrots in our garden. They would split into two large branches with a third smaller one in between, but I've never come across anything remotely like your avatar. That is awesome!

Something I picked up from Hyperdox Herman