Brass and printed icons

[Stephanos]

Hello,

I wonder what is the "holiness status" of the mass-produced
ikons as compared to that of the hand-painted (hand-written) ones? All comments will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Mariusz

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

To give one example. I lived for two months at the Monastery of St. George the Great Martyr on the Prinkopos Islands off the coast of Istanbul during September and October of 2001. In fact on Sept. 11th, 2001 we were four Athonite monks waiting to be martyred. The Monastery is very well known in Istanbul and is a place of pilgrimage for both Chalcedonian and Armenian Orthodox of Turkey.

The main reason for this is the miracle working icon of St. George in the Monastery Church. The icon is in fact a copy (and this is well known, it is not a secret) while the original icon is at the Patriarchate in Istanbul.

It is also a place of pilgrimage for Muslims. In fact on the Monastery Feast day, September 24th, there are usually 5 to 10 thousand pilgrims, 90% of whom are Muslim. There is a connection between St. George and El-Kadir in Islamic mysticism.

As for 'mass-produced' icons: Icons are not magic. It is the prayers of the faithful and the grace of God which is important to note here.

Similarily, if one just sits in the sepluchure of St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Franciso day-dreaming, at the Cathedral of the Joy of All Who Sorrow in San Franciso, what do you think the spiritual result will be? It can have the same significance as sitting in a cafe reading the newspaper. If one does not pray, you are wasting your time.

I have prayed in front of many Miracle working Icons and many miracles are attested to. I have also prayed in front, or rather venerated, printed Icons which also perform miracles. It depends on your faith, the sincerity of your prayer and the grace of God, all of which work in synergy.

We do not worship pieces of wood, we venerate the prototype.

I hope this helps.

[Olga]

I completely agree, Fr Seraphim, that it is not how the icon is made (hand-painted v printed) that makes it suitable or unsuitable for veneration. The content, what is depicted on the icon is more important, for instance, an "icon" depicting the so-called New Testament Trinity is non-canonical, and should not be venerated, irrespective of whether it is printed or painted. Other non-canonical "icons" which, sadly, continue to be produced are Angel of Blessed Silence (or Great Counsel), its related composition of Christ Holy Wisdom, and the All-Seeing Eye of God. None of these are suitable for veneration.

Some (including myself) would also question whether a metal riza or oklad should be placed on an icon. My opinion is this: The whole icon should be open to view, as the viewer should see the whole composition of the icon. Nothing should be obscured. However, if an oklad must be used, then it should only cover the areas of the composition with the least theological significance, such as surrounding the form of the saint, but not obscuring him, and as long as the original background is plain. I do not think it it right that a metal cover shows only hands and faces, as the theological content of the icon is obscured. Beware also of the really "cheap and nasty" icons with a metal cover, where the only painted or printed portions under the cover are the bits showing through the holes. These are effectively worthless.

[Stephanos]

Dear Seraphim,

Thank you for your response. Let me rephrase my question: We all know that an ikon painter/writer prepares himself for this task by fasting and praying, and the process of painting is also punctuated by such practices, and undartaken in a specific frame of mind. Needless to say, this is all missing in the mechanical reproduction (as far as I know.) If you are correct in stating that these devotions have nothing to do with the final product - the ikon - what purpose do they serve then?

Also, you wrote:


The icon is in fact a copy (and this is well known, it is not a secret) while the original icon is at the Patriarchate in Istanbul.

If this new ikon was painted according to the traditional rules, I would hesitate to call it a copy. On the other hand, if it is a sort of print, the term "copy" may be correct.

I hope I have made myself clearer this time.

Best regards,
Mariusz

[Olga]

I might add also that there is a recent example of a myrrh-streaming icon of St Nicholas of Myra, a printed icon laminated with plastic and mounted on masonite board, which was produced by a monastery in Wisconsin. The interesting thing is that this icon was considered "unfit" for sale by the monastery, because of a flaw in the mounting process. Such icons were given away, not sold, to visitors to the monastery for this reason.

An Orthodox priest from Indiana acquired one of these icons, and, in 1996, on the morning of the feast-day of St Nicholas, the icon which had been placed on the main icon stand in the church began streaming myrrh. It has done so ever since, and miracles have been reported from those who have venerated the icon or have been anointed with the myrrh. Despite extensive examination, no rational or scientific explanation for this phenomenon has been found.

I was privileged to see and venerate this icon when it came to Australia in late 2000, and, on hearing its history, I couldn't help thinking of the passage "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" - that even an ordinary printed icon which was deemed not good enough for sale, but simply given away, became a source of miracles.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Alas, it is really not my poor person who should be answering these questions, as I have never painted an icon, which is something to be wondered at, since my father (biological) was a very good painter, and in my early years I used to draw and even won first place for a face I drew.

First to respond to Mariusz, I would ask you respectfully that in your Profile under Religious Affiliaton, you respond with more than 'Student of Orthodox Christianity.' We are all students of Orthodox Christianity. Orthodoxy is by nature a continual pilgrimage, a continual unfolding.

I must ask you this, because recently I was slammed by a post which really took the wind out of me. I am recuperating from a serious operation, and I am not out of the woods yet. It takes me tremendous effort to write these posts, and it is only due to the genius of Matthew's spell checker that I manage to get the typos corrected. Sometimes I pass the post through the 'filter' of the spell checker four to five times.

It is due to the prayers of Fr. Raphael (also on this Board, and like yourself, from Canada) that I am able to continue posting. He supported me immensely through this past attack.

Perhaps, all this ties in though with the issue of written icons and printed icons. I once read an extensive study of the Internet, published here in Canada, which remarked that the Internet will be viewed as having the same technological status as the telephone.

I think all of us will agree that face to face communication is the best. One sees the other person, one can sense the nuance of the conversation through facial gestures, hand and body movement etc. The telephone removes the face to face element, but if we know the person on the 'other end of the line' than we can well imagine their body language. The Internet removes the face to face contact, the nuances gained by body language and one is left with the printed word. This can and does lead to all sorts of problems.

Your questions are proper in respect to traditional icon painting, but I never stated 'that these devotions have nothing to do with the final product.'

SO dear Mariuz, you are a resident of Canada, as was the other person who practically put me back in the operating theatre, you must respect the guidelines of Monachos, which is to my knowledge the very best of many Orthodox Web sites where one can post messages. I believe Matthew has done an astounding work in creating this web site where we can meet and exchange views. But I will not enter into polemics. First, it is not monastic to do so, and my health is so tenuous, I can not withstand a long drawn out battle of apologetics.

[Stephanos]

Dear Seraphim,

With due respect, I really don't see what my status of a student of Orthodoxy (which is all I am so far), or of a Canadian citizen, has to do with my simple question which is - rather obviously - not intended as a "battle of apologetics"?

May I also point out that it is entirely your choice to answer my postings?

Best regards,

Mariusz

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Mariuz,

Keeping in mind that I do not say or imply that miracle working printed icons bypass the necessary tradition for painting/writing icons, that is, prayer, fasting, Confession, reception of the Holy Mysteries, being an Orthodox Christian. I will reply in this way.

Here, I think Olga's posts are very good. She makes the matter very clear.

Please forgive the 'negative' statements in my post # 74. I did not mean to offend your person, or your intentions, rather I was simply trying to let you understand my physically weakened state.

faithfully,

fr. seraphim

PS. I spent two years in Romania, a predominately Orthodox country. 70% of the population earn less than $1.00 US dollar per day. Very, very few of the laity can afford a hand painted icon. Thus, there are many beautiful, traditional print icons on sale everywhere. For the most part the Romanian people depend on these for their Icon Corner. It is considered a great gift to receive a hand painted icon. In Romania they are very expensive. Even here, a properly painted icon runs into hundreds of dollars. Perhaps here in North America the possibility of purchasing such an icon is easier for us, due in no small measure to our higher standard of living. Still you will find, even in our Parishes many icons which are prints. This says a lot about the price of a hand painted icon.

There are some interesting Russian internet sites which sell hand painted icons. How they acquired these icons is anyone's guess. Probably, I would suppose from the damage caused during the Communist period. One site sells icons from as far back as the 14th century, but the asking price is several hundred Euros.

[Stephanos]

Dear Fr. Seraphim,


Please forgive the 'negative' statements in my post. I did not mean to offend your person, or your intentions, rather I was simply trying to let you understand my physically weakened state.

No harm done, and I hope you will get better soon, God willing.


Keeping in mind that I do not say or imply that miracle working printed icons bypass the necessary tradition for painting/writing icons, that is, prayer, fasting, Confession, reception of the Holy Mysteries, being an Orthodox Christian.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the religious actions before and during the ikon-painting/writing are aimed more at the person of the painter/writer than at the final product, i. e., the ikon itself. This has been my guess all along. Please correct me if I am wrong. By the way, I did not mean to denigrate the metal or paper images - I fully appreciate their efficacy.

Dear Olga,

Thank you kindly for your informative postings. My knowledge about the Orthodox ikons (I prefer this spelling over the alternative one with a "c" as it is, in my opinion, more specific) is quite rudimentary, and I enjoyed your comments about the oklads and the face-and-hands-only images.

(By the way, the following link will take you - if you are not familiar with it already - to the website of a lady ikon-painter in Vancouver, BC, which happens to be my hometown, too. On this particular web page she talks about the modern misconceptions in ikon-painting: http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/wrong.html .)

However, I beg to differ with your opinion concerning the Saviour of the Blessed Silence ikon. You consider it non-canonical but it is not so much an actual image as a symbol, therefore the question of its canonical character seems to be moot. It is also at least 200 years old, and the hundreds of thousands of prayers said in front of it cannot possibly be wasted.

I am privileged to have in my home a brass version of this image (19th c., Russian), surrounded by twenty-some smaller representations of Christ, Mother of God, prophets and saints. There is a great calm power emanating from it, and this particular ikon is prominently responsible for my taking active interest in Orthodoxy.

Best regards,
Mariusz

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olga,

Thank you for your explanations concerning icons, and the miraculous story of the icon of St Nicholas of Myra streaming myrrh. Surely it must be God's prerogative to choose which icon He will work wonders through, from the beautiful hand-painted ones to even the "cheap-and-nasty" variety! One question that comes up for me is that concerning the icons you describe as non-canonical. The icon of the Holy Trinity, for example, is right at the entrance of my local church. I always feel conflicted while venerating it, because of past discussions about this issue on monachos; but it just doesn't seem right to walk past it, having kissed all the other icons on the way in - especially as it depicts the very Deity I am about to worship inside the church! Could you say a little bit more about why it is non-canonical, and what do you think about the option of walking past it? Also, the All-Seeing Eye of God is carved above the entrance of one of Nicosia's central churches, Phaneromeni church; is it 'non-canonical' because it is also used in esoteric / occult symbolism (or because it appears on the American dollar?!)? And again, what is a Christian to do if these non-canonical depictions are encountered in places of worship?

Fr Seraphim, thank you for your moving account of people's wish for hand-painted icons in Roumania. It must indeed be a blessing to be given an expensive hand-painted icon, especially one painted by a monastic iconographer who has prayed lovingly over it. Nevertheless, I trust also that an expensive icon which simply decorates the walls of a luxurious home or hotel lobby (can happen here in Cyprus!) is being put to less use than a cheap print regularly prayed before in a Christian home...

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

An important point about the use of the expressions 'canonical' or 'non-canonical' which relates to iconography and many other Church matters also.

The canons are guidelines of the Church relating to Her doctrine or discipline. But most canons do not relate to the Faith in an absolute manner as if they intend to say, 'if you fail to do this you or what you are doing are no longer Orthodox'. A better understanding of 'non-canonical' would be 'not according to the standard of the Church' without implying that not following this standard is to fall completely outside the bounds of the Church- or to be 'without grace' as many put it nowadays.

This is very important when discussing iconography or other Church matters because we often use this expression 'non-canonical' as summing up something that is completely outside of the Church. Such an understanding of the canons however is itself not canonical ie not correct. This perhaps points to a deeper modern tendency we have of identifying the Truth of the Church with absolute mental categories.

To grasp what these canonical expressions really mean allows us to see how grace can work even in what is still in some sense incorrect. Thus the eternal question for us of how St Seraphim of Sarov could have prayed before an 'incorrect' icon of the Theotokos is answered by seeing outside of the way in which we are used to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bogdan]

First and formost I would like to extend my best wishes and prayers to Fr. Seraphim. I hope your health continues to get better, varily as I begin to pray for you.

Second, I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Raphael about the 'non-canonical' vs 'canonical'. For instance, when my father(who is a priest) came into a new parish, they had a greek icon of the Trinity, depicting the face of God the father, as well as having the all seing eye above!! What a combination. However, this WAS an orthodox produced icon, and after a couple weeks, my father decided to hang it in the changing room for alter boys/priests. This is no bigger than a small walk in closet, and the icon was the first and only one placed there ever. As Fr. Raphael put so eloquently, "it allowed us to see how grace can work even in what is still in some sense incorrect". I hope this example gives you one idea on how you can approach such icons!

Dear Byron,
As for fealing that you should venerate an icon that you HAVE venerated..well thats simple. Do what you feel comfortable with. The priest has the icon out there because he believes it is fine, so why not follow his lead? Also as many others have posted, approaching an icon with faith is the most important part of venerating it. If on the other hand you have struggled with it and start feeling uncomfortable, then just stop. I'm sure there are many other icons you can venerate. In some situations, when I walk into church, I don't have the opportunity to venerate EVERY icon. The important part is just that when i DO venerate one, that I do it with the right mindset. I hope that helps!

[Alec Lowly]

Byron writes:


"The icon of the Holy Trinity, for example, is right at the entrance of my local church. I always feel conflicted while venerating it, because of past discussions about this issue on monachos; but it just doesn't seem right to walk past it, having kissed all the other icons on the way in - especially as it depicts the very Deity I am about to worship inside the church! Could you say a little bit more about why it is non-canonical, and what do you think about the option of walking past it? Also, the All-Seeing Eye of God is carved above the entrance of one of Nicosia's central churches, Phaneromeni church; is it 'non-canonical' because it is also used in esoteric / occult symbolism (or because it appears on the American dollar?!)? And again, what is a Christian to do if these non-canonical depictions are encountered in places of worship?"

As it was explained to me, no representations of the Father and of the Spirit are "canonical" because They are both bodiless; Neither has a body that can be depicted, whereas the Lord, the Theotokos ahnd the saints do. The same point could be argued about angels, except descriptions of them are given in scripture.

The only "canonical" Trinitarian icon I know is Theophany: the Lord in the Jordan, the dove descending, and the disembodied "hand" of the Father emerging from the cloud to bless. Then there's the famous Rublyov icon, but that depicts the three angels that visited Abraham -- and this depicts the Trinity in symbol only.

"The all-seeing eye of God." Where do we find that in scripture and tradition?

What to do when faced with pseudo-icons? Well, ignore them if one can without giving scandal, but if one is likely to give scandal by ignoring them, I guess that some modest veneration is in order.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Trudy]

I have eight ikons in my prayer corner. Four are very small prints on small pieces of wood purchased for $2.00 US. One is a photograph of the weeping ikon of St. Anna and the Theotokos that is in Philadelphia, PA USA. Two are small laminated cards of St. Xenia of St. Petersburg and the Sitka Ikon. The last, of my patron St. Athanasius, is a color print I got from the internet and framed. Five of the eight have been blessed on the altar, all were blessed with holy water when Father came to bless my house.

Each ikon means very, very much to me. I know that the paper they are made with is worthless, as is the person who stands before them and begs their prayers. But, I love each person depicted very much.

All this to say if they were handpainted would I love them more? Doubtful. It is not the material that matters. It is the spiritual and grace given by God that does matter.

Just my thoughts, unworthy but there.

Athanasia

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael and Bogdan,

Thank you for your reccommendations, which are encouraging and useful. Indeed the habit of thinking in precise mental categories is sometimes hard to escape in our modern world of "forced-choice alternatives" and computer-speak, but its very good to remember that the Lord sees things a little more broadly than we do http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif!

Thanks again,

In Christ
Byron

[Olga]

I agree with Fr Raphael that the words canonical and non-canonical can be used with different shades of meaning, the sense that I have used these words in this discussion is as "rule", to be followed wherever possible. It is for this reason that I try not to use the word "heretical", unless an image is unmistakably so, such as some of the works of certain well-known (and notorious) artists who think it proper to paint the Trinity as a group of three women of different races, or Christ as the Celtic horned god Cernunos, and dare to call them icons. I have also grappled with the dilemma of the icon of the Mother of God "Diveyevo" made famous by St Seraphim of Sarov, and similar ones, of obvious Western influence, where the Mother of God is portrayed alone, without the presence of Christ, and often without the stars denoting her perpetual virginity, as to whether such icons should be produced or venerated. My feeling on this is that the further the content of an icon strays from theological integrity, the less able I feel to regard it as canonical.

I am completely aware of the gradual infiltration of Western artistic influences into iconography, which began as early as the 15th century, (look at the evolution of the iconography of the Cretan School over the centuries, for example), to the point that by the 19th century, the "naturalistic" had almost completely subsumed the traditional forms. This phenomenon affected all the Orthodox world, not just Greece and Russia. So, in this light, it is quite understandable that St Seraphim prayed before the Diveyevo icon, as such images were everywhere.

Let it be known that I, too, grew up with "naturalistic" icons, and with the ubiquitous "New Testament Trinity", it was only later in life, when I was able to learn about the subject in a more thorough and systematic way, that much of what I thought was right was, in fact, not so. (though my mother, dear old soul that she is, still insists on her beloved NT Trinity ....) Once I understood why these things were incorrect, then many other things, liturgical, theological, etc., actually made more sense to me! Andrei Rublyev's Holy Trinity has been called the most deeply theological icon of them all, and few could disagree with that. It is a matter of education, of making people aware, that there are correct and incorrect ways of doing things (carefully and gently, of course, without lording it over them). Folk tradition should not override Holy Tradition.

Byron, there are any number of canons which consistently and categorically forbid the portrayal of God the Father as a bearded old man. Some of these are included in:

St John of Damascus' On the Divine Images (6th century)
the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787
the Stoglav Council of Moscow (1551)
the Great Council of Moscow (1666-67), which is particularly important, as it addresses the fallacy of God the Father being the Ancient of Days mentioned in Daniel and in Revelation, thus removing the major plank of the "God as an old man" justification.

Mariusz, regarding the Angel of Blessed Silence, again, the Church's position is clear. Canon 82 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council has this to say:

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth, Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His Passion, His salvific death, and thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

It is not only possible, but necessary, to represent Christ in His human form, not in any symbolic form, in order to repudiate Arianism, Nestorianism and other heresies which do not regard Him as fully human and fully God. Thus, while Christ is variously described in Scripture and liturgically in symbolic terms (one only has to look at the hymn "God is With Us, sung at Great Compline for a good range of these), Canon 82 is clear on this. Christ is not to be portrayed as a "personification" of an attribute of His, such as Angel of Great Counsel/Blessed Silence, or Holy Wisdom, etc. Space does not permit me to comment on the All-Seeing Eye of God, but let me assure you, it has nothing to do with the motif on the US dollar bill! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Also I completely agree with you re your comment about the icon as ostentatious hotel decor versus the ordinary printed icon greatly and lovingly venerated in a humble home - how true!

I have a number of articles on file on this subject which I can make available to anyone who is interested. Please feel free to email me privately.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olga and Alec,

Thank you for you extra input on the veneration of "canonical" and "non-canonical" icons. I am reminded of a story from the Jewish religious tradition, where an uneducated and rather light-headed villager insisted on praying by repeating a word which meant "unclean" in Hebrew. The Rabbi commended him for praying, but asked him to use instead the word for "clean". A few days later the Rabbi observed this same villager hopelessly struggling to pray, getting his words mixed up until they were just nonsense syllables, at which point he gave him permission to pray again with the old word, meaning "unclean".

Mark 7:15 "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'"

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

An interesting discussion that I think also relates to wider Church issues.

We definitely must strive to follow what is according to the guidance of the Church, ie our actions need to be 'canonical'. So there is a canonical way of painting icons or rather something that is a true icon or image of who we are trying to depict.

On the other hand our understanding of this can become so strident that this in itself causes serious problems. For example one can hear that an icon absolutely must depict that which is 'historical'. Does this mean therefore that an icon of the Parable of the Prodigal Son is not correct?

I think that in many of these areas of Church life we need to constantly be finding a balance between two extremes of 'anything goes' and 'only this is Orthodox.' We have within our churches many images of All-seeing eyes, 19th century style Christs & Theotokoses, and enough Last Suppers to keep Leonardo provided for until the Second Coming. To deal with this takes discernment and sensitivity to others.

On the one hand we must strive for what is most correct. Somehow though how we relate to what is not correct is not the same issue. Often the latter is more a question of how we change what is incorrect. And sometimes it is also a question of us recognising that the Church's guidance as to what is correct was not meant in the exclusive sense in which we originally interpreted it.

Perhaps this even is an essential aspect of how Christ guides His Church according to His wisdom. He urges us to do our best and provides guidance about this through many means within the Church. But we are constantly at risk of making 'doing our best' into a purely human enterprise that pursues the pleasures of the outer and neglects the self-sacrifice of the inner. So it could very well be that in His wisdom Christ allows certain 'incorrect' things within the Church in order to round off the edges of our self-sufficient pride. Anyway- we too are at the present time 'incorrect' images.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

I like this post of Byron's. In another time and another thread I made mention of the icons one sees in the hermitages of monks on the Holy Mountain of Athos. Byron's post reminds me of this.

Some hermits, especially, the very elderly, are amazed to encounter monks from the West. Thus, I have been greeted with such expressions: 'you can not be Orthodox, you don't look Orthodox,' said with complete sincerity.

One also witnesses in their cells the most amazing variety of icons.

If they were to read our, sometimes, academic debate, they would consider it nonsense, believe me. (Which is not to say I disagree with having proper, traditional icons.) Nevertheless, you enter their cell, and carefully, gently, reverentially placed and prayed before are all the above mentioned icons.

It is very easy to fall into the temptation to judge, after all, did he not just judge me?!

I don't look Orthodox, because my ancestry is Scottish, and thus I do not look Greek, Russian, Serbian, or even Romanian (though while in Romania, many people thought I was Romanian!)

Fr. Sophrony had a wonderful sense of humour. Sometimes he would speak of the icons at St. Panteleimon's where he lived on the Holy Mountain. There one does behold the most incredibly 'Latin' looking icons, overweight Cherubs and all. He said they were beneficial, because of their 'cringe-factor' he would close his eyes and pray more intensely!

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Dear Venerable Seraphim Black, God bless you!


"I don't look Orthodox, because my ancestry is Scottish"

You may be the atypical looking Orthodox Christian, but Orthodoxy is privileged to have anyone Scottish in our midst's. Scottish people from what I have experienced, are very likely among the most if not the nicest people in the world. My wife, +Betty+ was half Scottish and her mother, +Marian+ was 100% Scottish. In this life they were absolutely the most wonderful people you could ever meet; and the two of them were like two peas in a pod. They are both with the Lord now, having passed at very young ages. Your friend in Christ, Vasilis

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Seraphim wrote,


I don't look Orthodox, because my ancestry is Scottish

From the Orthodox Community of St Andrew website(EP):


Our History The original tradition of the Church, preserved in Orthodox ecclesiology and spirituality has long been eclipsed in the West by the ascendancy of the Roman church and of the Reformation churches which grew out of it. In Scotland, however, the ancient Orthodox legacy has never been entirely lost. Even today the sacred geography of Scotland from Iona to St. Andrews and from Whithorn to Kirkwall tells of a very different allegiance the names of the Celtic Saints which are preserved in innumerable towns and villages witness to a Church which is gathered around its local bishop, priest or missionary founder rather than a hierarchical organisation. The Lives of the Saints reveal a spirituality which draws on all the The Crossriches of Eastern Christianity. Recurrent themes are the love of creation as a path to the Creator and the reconciliation of the whole of creation in Christ and His Saints. So close was the relationship to Egyptian monastic traditions that the Scottish "Culdee" communities were described as "sons of the Egyptians". The Celtic Cross and the Iconography of the illuminated manuscripts also point unambiguously to the East. St Andrew, the patron Saint of Constantinople, became the patron Saint of Scotland with his cross the Saltire.

You would not dare say to any Scotsman of the 9th century that he did not look Orthodox without having a bowl of porridge thrown at you. Eech.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Stephanos]

Dear Olga,

You have put a lot of time and effort in your postings and I would like to thank you for that. I do not agree with your interpretation (because that's what it is) of canon 82 of the Quinisext Council, and a year or two ago I would go to great lengths to explain why. This, in its turn, would generate your equally long response, and so on, causing us a serious loss of time and, perhaps, mutual good feelings.

However, after spending just over half a century on this earth, I have finally realized that the only reasonable way to approach such minor and debatable issues is through the common sense. Taking a principled, rigid stand on them only leads to fanaticism and persecution. The main question we should ask is, what harm does it cause? A good example of such a "blessed sin" is the veneration of the mysterious Islamic figure of al-Khidr under the guise of St. George in Turkey, which has been recently mentioned in this thread by Fr. Seraphim. The Orthodox church in its wisdom does not try to stomp it out, although it would be hard to imagine something more "un-canonical"...

Best regards,

Mariusz

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

As a response to Mariusz's reference re: al-Khidr I would like to relate a few occurences regarding my two month stay at the Monastery of St. George the Great Martyr, blessed by His Holiness, Patriarch Barthlomew.

I witnessed many miracles during my sojourn there. I did mention that over 90% of the pilgrims were Islamic. My stay there occured during Sept. 11th, 2001 and I must witness to the incredible devotion and attentiveness to prayer envinced by Islamic people, which in turn lead to not the slightest hint of danger to my person, or the other Fathers with me.

We had a sign outside the Church asking that all pilgrims dress respectfully. We even had a supply of long skirts and blouses for women, and long trousers for men.

The amazing thing is that we never had any trouble with Armenian Orthodox or Rum Orthodox, or Muslims, but we had endless encounters with Orthodox from mainland Greece. We were literally cursed by Greek Orthodox and how we had changed their present day customs, to adhere to some 'fantasy' of by-gone days of Orthodoxy, Certainly (according to them absolutely out-dated) and not in accordance with modern day Greek practice.

We were aghast.

An Orthodox Muslim women would never enter a mosque or place of prayer without a head-covering and modest attire. The same was evident by the behaviour of the Armenian and Rum Orthodox.

I had one extremely interesting situation. An Iman in Instanbul had a mosque attendee whose son was truly a test of patience. He was about 10 years of age. This poor woman and her husband had gone to many mosques in Istanbul to no avail.

One day an Iman said 'I know of only one place where your son will achieve some sense of peace and that place is the Monastery of St. George, the miracle working Icon, and the prayers of St. George.

I prayed over this boy and then the priest took over the service to read over him the Prayer of Healing. With epitrahilion over this poor boys head he prayed fervently.

Lo, and behold the same boy who entered the church surrounded by noise, mayhem and confusion, wept and held, after the prayers, his dear mother. Though I know not the Turkish language, I felt this deep peace descend upon the boy.

He left the church, with joy on his face and none of chaos he brought into the Church. Needless to say both parents were extremely grateful.

I could speak of many occurences - Muslims who could not conceive a child, yet upon supplication to St. George,, the hoped for prayers were heeded. I had the immense blessing of meeting the children of these prayer. One couple had been blessed with triplets! Others spoke of answered prayers to same desire for children.

In the tragic circumstances of a potential 'clash of civilaztions,' just exactly does my lived experience testify too?

I leave blessed readers to draw your own conclusions.

As Fr. Raphael alludes to we are entering a difficult period. A possible union of the Russian Church in Exile and the Moscow Patriarchate, looms precariously on the horizon. What can one say of the decade long debates with the Oriental and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy? History, politics, fear of being engulfed by Byzantium, and yet theologians squabble over 'words.'

God has blessed me to know many Oriental Orthodox whether in India or elsewhere. By their fruits will you know them. If we take monasticism as a barometer, I can say without hesitation that Oriental monks hold me in awe.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr seraphim,

thank you for the amazing stories from the monastery of St George. Last summer I had the chance to visit it, but unfortunately never made it.

Just as God can bless and heal Turks and Muslims, He no doubt loves the Scottish, Irish, Russian, and Greek alike! Wonderful as cultures and languages and races are in their diversity which should certainly be respected and preserved, I feel (and my spiritual father recently reminded me) there is still something to be learned from the story of the Tower of Babel there!!

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Byron,

Many thanks for mentioning the Scottish and Irish - but you forgot the English!

As a true Scot, (where is my Kilt, anyways?), I highly recommend 'Braveheart' with Mel Gibson in the star role. Or why stop there, how about the film 'Gandhi?'

There are pre-schism English Saints, but they came to the True Faith via the Celts!!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As a true Scot, (where is my Kilt, anyways?), I highly recommend 'Braveheart' with Mel Gibson in the star role. Or why stop there, how about the film 'Gandhi?'

Do you mean that Ghandi is a Scot? Or that he wore a kilt? :>

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Dear Mariusz

The passage in italics in my earlier post is not my interpretation of Canon 82, it is the text of the Canon itself. I let the Holy Fathers speak for themselves, as they do a far better job than I. My stance on this matter has nothing to do with fanaticism, which I detest utterly in any form, but everything to do with expressing what is known to be true, and to try to correct some durable misconceptions. And rest assured, there is no ill-feeling at all on my part towards you, just because you disagree with what I have to say.

[Stephanos]

Dear Olga,

Without going into too many details, let me just state that I see the veneration of some debatably "un-canonical" ikons as a question of economy, especially when the process is several centuries old. This, of course, does not apply to recently introduced models which have more to do with political correctness than the true faith.

Best regards,

Mariusz

[Dewi Poole]

Dear Venerable Seraphim Black,

I hope you are growing stronger and that you are recovering your health. As a full blooded Welshman I just wanted to point out that Wales has many pre-schism Orthodox Christian saints - some are common with Cornwall and Brittany.David (Dewi) is the Patron Saint Of Wales(6th century).Many Anglican churches are dedicated to Celtic Saints and the names are carried in many village names throughout the principality i.e. St Deiniol(Deiniolen) St Illtud,(Llanilltyd Fawr)St Cybi (LLangybi + Caergybi(Holyhead). Many villages which commence with Llan usually denote the name of a saint or the mother of God e.g. Llanfair (Mair being the Welsh form of Mary).

In Christ - Dewi

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dearest in Christ, Fr. Raphael,

With profound insight Gandhi said he was not moved to convert from Hinduism to Christianity, since he had never witnessed 'a true Christian' that being of course, one who had put the Gospel into daily practice. (How difficult is our Faith!)

My reference to the film, 'Gandhi', produced admirably by Richard Attenborough, simply referred to the British occupation of India (the railway system is, by the way, rather excellent.)

Only a true Scot (phone 007) can answer your question. I was born in St. Catherines, Ontario, sad to say.

But he did wear an 'abbreviated' kilt - does this count??

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Father Seraphim,

As you say in post #82 "Gandhi, with deep insight, did not convert to Chstianity because he hadn't yet met a 'true Christian', that is one who truly lives in practice TRUE CHRISTIANITY, I feel that I can understand why this can be true even today, in 2006. because ....

...in the Gospel reading of Saturday, February 11 in LUKE 18:2-8 Jesus, Christ, himself says "When the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth?" And this the day before the Gospel of the Pharisee and the publican --"God, be merciful to me a sinner!" in preparation for the beginning of the Lenten Season in a couple of weeks.

If one continues to read Luke 18, it is, at least for me -- that there is a gradation in this Chapter, from the "welcoming the kingdom of God as a little child", to the "come and follow me", to the "things that are impossible to men are possible for God, to the "third prophecy of the Passion". To the prayer of the blind man, "that I may see!" and the great desire of Zachaeus, to only " see who this man, Jesus was, climbing a tree to better see.!" Such simple and clear examples for me, and for each follower of Christ.!

It seems so clear to me, and very "simple also" that it is ESSENTIAL to follow the examples of the Scripture characters in order to be enabled "to live as Jesus did" ...by asking myself questions: "How am I to become more like a "little child"? How am I to be more trustful in the Promises of Jesus? How am I, today, to grow in Faith, Hope and Love? How can I hope, today to better "see" Jesus and act upon His word for me?

And perhaps another Gandhi will see Christ, in the life of Christians, today, those who have "brave hearts!"

It seems to me that "the Word of God says it all!" in every Language, Nationality, Race, and Creed!

I like "plaid" too, even though I am not Scottish. Hope you are recuperating into better health, Fr. Seraphim!

Father, bless!

marie_duquette

[Olga]

Dear Mariusz,

It can be seen from the dates of the various councils on iconography I mentioned in my earlier long post, (these being councils which specifically dealt with the problem of portraying God the Father, and of portraying Christ as the Wisdom of God and other "personifications" of an attribute of His), that these portrayals were controversial and doctrinally problematic from the time they first appeared, and is not a recent phenomenon. Therefore, to invoke "economia" as a reason to permit their veneration is based on a false premise. Economia could, perhaps, be invoked for other icons of the Mother of God such as Diveyevo, but not for portrayals of God the Father or personification of Christ. I reiterate that it is a matter of careful, gentle education, on the part of clergy as well as laity, as to which icons are proper and which are not. As I was able to change my mind about the NT Trinity I grew up with, so it should be possible for anyone to see the error of their ways in this regard. Genuine, "innocent" ignorance can be excused, however, clinging to something that is shown to be incorrect doesn't seem right.

Re more recent "politically correct" works, I assume you are referring to some of the "icons" produced by certain artists, who have chosen to depict non-saints in an iconographic style, and portrayed Christ and the Mother of God as black Africans, Native Americans, etc? There is a very good post on this matter from late 2003, by the late Fr Averky who was a very regular (and sorely missed) contributor to Monachos; he addresses the phenomenon of these "icons" beautifully. It's worth your while to search for it.

[Stephanos]

Dear Olga,


Economia could, perhaps, be invoked for other icons of the Mother of God such as Diveyevo, but not for portrayals of God the Father or personification of Christ.

I never considered the ikon of the Angel of the Blessed Silence (because this is the particular image I am defending here) as a personification of Christ. The way I understand it, it depicts the mystery hidden in the first thirty years of Christ's life, and - as such - is quite "historical". Whatever "grey areas" this perspective has can be excused by reasons of economy.

Unlike you, Olga, Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky - both foremost experts on ikonology - do not understand the ecumenical pronouncements as totally banning symbolism in ikon-writing (I can supply specific references from their texts to this effect.)

Finally, if it was an "error" in the shape of my brass ikon of the Angel of the Blessed Silence that had led me to Orthodoxy, so be it. God's ways are mysterious.

Best regards,
Mariusz

[Olga]

Dear Mariusz


You consider it non-canonical but it is not so much an actual image as a symbol, therefore the question of its canonical character seems to be moot.

It is not I, of my own volition, who considers the image of Blessed Silence non-canonical, but I express the mind of the Orthodox Church on the matter. The question of canonicity is not moot at all, as readers will soon find.

Few would disagree that Lossky and Ouspensky are iconologists of the highest stature. In fact it was my reading Ouspensky’s “Theology of the Icon” some years ago which brought to light for the first time in my life not only what iconography was, but also what it was not. This, in turn, let me to the writings of Lossky, Trubetskoi, Cavarnos and others. Attached for the interest of everyone on this forum is the complete text of chapter six of this book, which deals with the Seventh (or Quinisext) Ecumenical Council and its canons on iconography, including a thorough analysis of Canon 82. For the sake of (relative) brevity, I reproduce a number of sections which are of direct relevance to this current discussion thread. The three passages in bold type are my emphasis, other than that, I defer to Ouspensky and the Holy Fathers to speak for themselves:

The first sentence of the canon explains the situation existing at that time. It speaks of St. John the Baptist (the "Precursor") pointing out Christ, who is represented as a lamb. We know that the realistic image of Christ, His adequate portrait, existed from the beginning, and it is this portrait which is the true witness of His incarnation. In addition, there were also larger cycles representing subjects from the Old and New Testaments, particularly those of our major feasts, where Christ was represented in His human form. And yet symbolic representations replacing the human image of Christ also existed in the seventh century. This attachment to the biblical prefigurations, in particular to the image of the lamb, was particularly widespread in the West. It was necessary, however, to guide the faithful towards the stand adopted by the Church, and this is what Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council does.

Because it is the truth which came through Jesus Christ, it is not a matter of translating a word into images, but of showing the truth itself, the fulfilment of the words. Indeed, when he was speaking of "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world," it was not a lamb at which St. John the Baptist was pointing but rather Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God who became Man and came to the world to fulfil the law and to offer Himself in sacrifice. It is He who was prefigured by the lamb of the Old Testament. It is this fulfilment, this reality, this truth which had to be shown to everyone. Thus the truth is revealed not only by the word, but it is also shown by the image. The text of the canon implies an absolute denial of all abstractions and of all metaphysical conceptions of religion. Truth has its own image. For it is not an idea or an abstract formula, it is concrete and living, it is a Person, the Person, "crucified under Pontius Pilate." When Pilate asks Christ, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), Christ answers by remaining silent before him. Pilate leaves, without even awaiting an answer, knowing that a whole multitude of answers can be given to this question without one of them being valid. For it is the Church alone which possesses the answer to the question of Pilate. Christ says to His apostles: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). The correct question is not "What is truth?" but rather "Who is the truth?" Truth is a person, and it has an image. This is why the Church not only speaks of the truth, but also shows the truth: the image of Jesus Christ.

The council orders that the symbols of the Old Testament, used in the first centuries of Christianity, be replaced by direct representations of the truth they prefigured. It calls for the unveiling of their meaning. The image contained in the symbols of the Old Testament becomes reality in the incarnation. Since the Word became flesh and lived among us, the image must directly show that which happened in time and became visible, representable and describable.

Thus the ancient symbols are suppressed because a direct image now, exists and, in relation to this direct image, these symbols are belated manifestations of "Jewish immaturity." As long as the wheat was not ripe, their existence was justified, even indispensable, since they contributed to its maturation. But in "the wheat ripe with truth," their role was no longer constructive. They even became a negative force because they reduced the principal importance and role of the direct image. As soon as a direct image is replaced by a symbol, it loses the absolute importance it embodies.

The Fathers and the Christological councils had found clear and precise dogmatic formulas to express, as much as it was possible to do in words, the teaching of the Church on the incarnation of God. But words were not enough: The truth still had to be defended for a long time against those who did not accept it, in spite of the extreme clarity of conciliar decrees and patristic formulas. It was not only necessary to speak the truth, it was also necessary to show it. In the realm of the image, it was also necessary to make a rigorous confession which would stand up against the obscure and confused doctrines which everyone could accept equivocally, but which were not true. It was not a matter of finding a compromise to satisfy everyone, but of clearly confessing the truth, so "that this fulfilment might be seen by all," according to the words of Canon 82.

Thus Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council expresses, for the first time, the teaching of the Church on the icon and simultaneously indicates the possibility of conveying a reflection of the divine glory through the means of art and with the help of some symbolism. It emphasises all the importance of historical reality, acknowledging the realistic image, but only one which is represented in a special way, with the help of a symbolic language that reveals the spiritual reality which only the Orthodox teaching conveys. It considers that the symbols, "the figures and shadows," do not express the fullness of grace, although they are worthy of respect and may correspond to the needs of a given epoch. The iconographic symbol is therefore not completely excluded. But its importance is seen as secondary. Our own contemporary iconography still retains several of these symbols: for example, the three stars on the robe of the Virgin, which denote her virginity before, during and after the nativity, or else a hand descending from the sky to designate the divine presence. But this iconographic symbolism is relegated to its secondary place and never replaces the direct image.

Canon 82 expresses, for the first time, what we call the iconographic canon, i.e. a set criterion for the liturgical quality of an image, just as the "canon of Scripture" establishes the liturgical quality of a text. The iconographic canon is a principle allowing us to judge whether an image is an icon or not. It establishes the conformity of the icon with Holy Scripture and defines what this conformity consists in: the authenticity of the transmission of the divine revelation in historical reality, by means of what we call symbolic realism, and in a way that truly reflects the Kingdom of God.

I would recommend to all to read the entire chapter for maximum benefit. However, it is plain to see from the excerpts I have posted that purely symbolic representations of Christ are contrary to the principles of iconography. Such depictions also interfere with the transmission and understanding of Orthodox doctrines, including those pertaining to Christology. I reiterate that my contributions to this thread are not intended to “lord it over” anyone, nor to discourage or denigrate anyone’s faith, but to present the truth as espoused by the Fathers of the Church through the ecumenical and synodal councils. Ouspensky and his peers ably analyse and clarify the position of the Church. To someone who is not Orthodox, iconography is perhaps the most visible and recognisable feature of the Church which sets it apart from all others. Every effort should be made by us all to protect and maintain the canonicity and integrity of this treasure. This is no less important than maintaining the theological, sacramental or liturgical integrity of the Church. After all, icons are, to quote Trubetskoi, “theology in colour”.

[Stephanos]

Dear Olga,

In one of my previous postings I wrote:


I do not agree with your interpretation (because that's what it is) of canon 82 of the Quinisext Council, and a year or two ago I would go to great lengths to explain why. This, in its turn, would generate your equally long response, and so on, causing us a serious loss of time and, perhaps, mutual good feelings.

Well, my prediction has come true and I still don't agree with your interpretation. I consider this matter closed.

Best regards,
Mariusz

[Nadine Thola]

Fr. Seraphim

>> I spent two years in Romania, a predominately Orthodox country. 70% of the population earn less than $1.00 US dollar per day. Very, very few of the laity can afford a hand painted icon. Thus, there are many beautiful, traditional print icons on sale everywhere. For the most part the Romanian people depend on these for their Icon Corner.<

I'm doing research on Romanian Glass icons. Would you be able to share some of your experiences with me about how they're made, if the tradition is being revitalized, etc.
Thanks!
Nadine

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Nadine,

To my rather limited knowledge on the entirety of iconography in the Orthodox world, it is nevertheless my belief that only in Romania will you find glass icons. As to how they are painted - it is quite fascinating. A nun did one for me of Saint Silouan the Athonite. The tradition is very much alive and in that sense is not being 'revitalized' because it has continued to be practiced.

The actual technique is, to my eye, quite difficult, the actual icon being painted on the 'back' of the glass and then that is covered with thin wood and framed.

Some of the painted icons I have seen are absolutely astounding, truly magnificent.

I will look for some internet sites for you today, later on, - if you can be a bit patient. They are some convents which specialize in the writing of these icons. I must look up their names and see if they have a web-site.

May our Lord bless you in your research!

[Katarina Fajgelj]

I am new here, and I can`t express my joy when I saw this topic on your forum.

I am sudying ikonography in Belgrade, and I was asking this question for some time. I even want to write an article on it.

I think it is an important question, and allso think that today orthodox usualy don`t take iconography serious enough...if I can say so, in way that everything can be considered good.

Ikons are not just helping us pray, they are extension of theology, a way of selebrating God; with colours, with voice, or with words. That`s why, in times when faith was weakned, the iconography was allso "corrupted".

We now have this printed icons, with no tuch of a human hand, impersonal, where there wasn`t use nature, as fathers of the VII Council determined, and we have them in great numbers, in newspapers, on small papers, I often see them on the street...And on the other hand we have them miraculous.

There could be explanation on this. In the last century there was a lack of orthodox iconographers, and allso bad material status, and persecutions. So if every home was to have an ikon, and they couldn`t aford one, they took printed one (in my critical opinon, it was better that they draw one with their own hand, but I am very critical).

But now, we have so many ikonographers, Facultys of Ikonography..etc, and we, mostly, can aford handpainted icon, I think there is no reason to print more ikons, since they are not exactly in the tuch whit canons.

Fathers of the VII Council said that when ikonpainting, man should use "nature" :wood, stone, egg, earth... And there is a wonderfull theologycal ground on that. People are called to transfigure nature, to be priests of all the Creation. To bring the Creation back to God. That`s what makes us Ikons. St. John of Damascus wrote many beautifull words on that, and many martyrs gave their lives in defending ikons. That must not be overlooked.

Today fr.Stamatis Skliris, talkes so much about holly Ikons, and ikonpainting. There are many reasons why not to underestimate ikonography.

I am not saying that all printed ikons should be marked as hieretical, and burned. They are products of one time, and were part of our lives, and were part of Church, and were sanctified.

But times have changed, as I said. Not only that should be changed (printing ikons), but ikonography itself should be changed, too.

In my opinon, based on some thinking and researching, we should, at least, print much less ikons, for printing we should ask blessing from our Bishop, who should see in wich purposes are they printed, and check their canonicity. And allready printed ikons shoud be venerated as up to now. Thow checked, if used in churches, on canonicity. After all we are venerating person who is depicted in that ikon, actualy Christ who appeared in Saints(we can`t venerate all-seeing eye).(simbolysm was forbidened by Ecumenical Council, I think V-VI)

My english is not very good, but my toungue is very long. I beg your patience!

[Katarina Fajgelj]

OUUUuups!!!

I haven‚t read the 2 page.Sorry!
Well at least you know what I think about it.

[Nadine Thola]

Have you found any more information on the glass icons or the websites of the monasteries that do them? Thanks! Nadine

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Have you found any more information on the glass icons or the websites of the monasteries that do them? Thanks! Nadine

Dear Nadine,

Forgive me, my health has been very poor, and as such I have not fulfilled this request. If you search on 'Google' with a search such as: 'Romainian Orthodox Glass Icons' I feel certain you will find what you are looking for. I trust this will help.