Other churches' icons

[Ryan]

Does the Orthodox Church have any kind of rule against using the icons of other churches, for example, Coptic or Catholic icons?

[Michael Astley]

I wouldn't have thought so. It depends on what you mean, though.

When you say "Catholic or Coptic icons", do you mean icons written in a style peculiar to the Catholic or Coptic style? If so, then I don't see why there would be a problem, provided that the icon is indeed of an Orthodox Saint and conatins nothing contrary to the Orthodox Faith. Catholics and Copts do venerate some of the Saints of the Orthodox Faith from the days before they apostasised.

If, however, you mean to ask whether it is ok to venerate persons depicted in icons and who are recognised as saints by Catholics and Copts but not by the Church, then no, this is not permissible, as far as I know.

[Ryan]

I had in mind basic icons such as the Theotokos. To clarify, I was wondering if the church was concerned not only with the subject matter, but with who wrote the icon, and in what style. For example, many of the modern Coptic icons have a "cute and cuddly" style to them which is markedly different from standard Byzantine icons.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I had in mind basic icons such as the Theotokos. To clarify, I was wondering if the church was concerned not only with the subject matter, but with who wrote the icon, and in what style. For example, many of the modern Coptic icons have a "cute and cuddly" style to them which is markedly different from standard Byzantine icons.

Icons should be painted by those who are members of the Church. This is because we are not only talking about technique but also about an Orthodox spirituality which is crucial for the painting of a real icon.

Here we come to the distinction between iconography and religious art. Iconography is not religious art- depictions of religious themes or people according to artistic standards- but rather an indication of that transfigured reality within which the Thetokos & the saints dwell. For this kind of depiction faithfulness to traditional kinds of technique are very important. But also spiritual depiction is also needed which relies on the ascetic & spiritual life which is had within the Church.

It also needs to be kept in mind that nowadays we use the word iconography in a very general sense almost like a word that means 'correct religious depictions'. Iconography however as something distinct to the Orthodox Church arose in connection with the iconographic disputes of the 8th century. Through painstaking struggle the Church developed a theological expression about iconography connected to the Incarnation and Christology. The development of iconography deeply reflects this understanding & indeed we could even say that incorrect iconography is defined as any visual depictions which do not spring from this theological vision.

In a real way then iconography arose within the Orthodox Church because this was where this whole struggle over religious depiction took place. Even something we would consider worthy of being considered an icon in the west or among the non-Chalcedonians is not a consciously produced icon in our sense. This isn't said in an exclusive way as once the principles of iconography are understood they can be taken up anywhere. But it's important to keep all of this in mind since by iconography we actually mean a whole conscious understanding and specific technique of art which arose from within the context of the Orthodox Church.

Of course from the West there are completely acceptable depictions of Christ, the Theotokos & the saints which date from the pre-Schism period. But we would have to very prayerfully look at whether it would be correct for example to adorn a whole Orthodox church in this manner. On first impulse it may be that any visual depictions considered correct might be considered acceptable. But this could be serious short-sightedness on our part like replacing our present way of doing services with those of the 6th century because they're 'correct'. It could also be that Coptic icons would fall into this category.

Not to be too rigid about this. Some of these pre-Schism or Coptic icons could be acceptable in a personal setting. Many of the faithful have naturalistic depictions of saints or angels accompanying a weary traveller in their prayer corner. This is different though from the iconography of a church setting which does call for a strict iconographic standard even if it rarely meets it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

Father bless,

So would you say that its acceptable for Orthodox to have religious art (as opposed to icons) if they dont venerate it and only have it for personal use ?
What about statues? Would it be ok for an Orthodox to have a statue of Theotokos in their garden or whatnot? I always wondered about that.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father bless,

So would you say that its acceptable for Orthodox to have religious art (as opposed to icons) if they dont venerate it and only have it for personal use ?
What about statues? Would it be ok for an Orthodox to have a statue of Theotokos in their garden or whatnot? I always wondered about that.

I think it's important not to be too rigid about all of this. As long as we try to understand what iconography is and try to the best of our ability to have this adorning our churches then I think there is room for devotional pictures or maybe western or Coptic icons in our own personal prayer spaces. Somehow though I think veneration should be for actual icons, not devotional pictures.

About statues there is a beautiful statue of the New-martyr Grand duchess Elizabeth in the flower garden at the Sts Mary/Martha Convent in Moscow.

Again though I think it's important to not get too rigid about this. There's something called correct icography to be sure- but there are also the things that naturally contribute to one's own prayerful space, let's say at home or wherever that don't quite fit this category. These things seem to happen naturally over time and it seems wrong to not allow for this.

Maybe it would be an interesting exercise for us to look at our prayer corners or what's in our homes to see what we use to create a prayerful space.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council was the prohibition of statues for the purposes of veneration, as it was regarded that a three-dimensional figure resembled physical, earthly reality too closely, as well as being reminiscent of pagan statues. An icon, on the other hand, is flat, and the geometric, "unnatural" artistic style best reflected what was otherworldly and spiritually transfigured. The Byzantines were, after all, the descendants of the Greeks and Romans who were masters at naturalistic portrayal in two and three dimensions, and the choice of this flat, "unreal" style to proclaim and express the truths of the Church was quite conscious and deliberate.

In this light, I would imagine the statue of New Martyr Elizabeth would have been commissioned as a monument to her, not as an object of veneration. I am happy to be corrected on this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In this light, I would imagine the statue of New Martyr Elizabeth would have been commissioned as a monument to her, not as an object of veneration. I am happy to be corrected on this.

I was wondering about this myself. The statue represents a saint and it is there for the purpose of the faithful. But should the faithful be discouraged from kissing the statue for example if they wished? I'm not too sure.

Think of all the things we DO venerate like pieces from the Tomb of Christ and so on.

Maybe what was intended was that we do not venerate these other things in the same way as icons.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kris]

Does the Orthodox Church have any kind of rule against using the icons of other churches, for example, Coptic or Catholic icons?.

Peace,

I would say that it is fine as long as the icons are consistent with Orthodox iconographic rules and that they do not in any way contradict Orthodox doctrine or dogma.

For example, there is the famous image of Christ called the "Sacred Heart," which is a term and concept that is (I think) unique to Catholicism, and so might not be appropriate.

Also, if one looks at the Coptic icon of the Pantocrator, the Lord raises one finger in blessing as a symbol of His one nature. Considering the fact that this was an expression used by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and that the Church accepts this phrase as Orthodox (provided its interpreted correctly), I don't think that is a problem; I'm just using it as an example.

Also, one must bear in mind the purpose of iconography, and that the icon you get is consistent with that purpose.

I do agree with Fr. Raphael's point about the writer of the icon being from within the Church. However, I don't think its essential; especially since most people buy copies and prints, etc.

Russian iconography has borrowed heavily from Western religious art, and Georgian iconography is not too dissimilar from that of the Copts (who had a different style of iconography from the Byzantine Church even when we were in communion with eachother). So there is clearly no single correct iconographic style.

Please pray for me, a sinner.

[Scott Pierson]

Thank you ,

I was always wondering if it was ok for me to have a statue of the virgin mary because I have one in my flower bed and I like it.

[Olga]

Fr Raphael

Forgive my presumption, but my understanding is that the holiness of an object (or a fragment of it) such as Christ's tomb, or St Symeon's pillar is derived from the holiness of the person associated with that object imparting sanctity to that object, therefore, it seems proper to venerate such an object, as it calls to mind that saint. Do we not venerate the Epitaphios/Plaschanitsa on Great Friday? Not to mention the Cross, even though these objects in our churches are mere copies of the originals, in the same way as icons are pictorial "copies" of the saints and feasts they represent. The Church calendar has several feasts dedicated to the veneration of objects which have become sanctified through their association with Christ and various saints, e.g. the chains of Apostle Peter, the robe of the Lord, the belt/sash of the Mother of God, etc.

On the other hand, the statue of St Elizabeth seems to me to be more for decorative purposes, rather than for veneration, particularly as Orthodoxy has for centuries proscribed the use of statues for veneration for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Though it could be a tall order to discourage pious folk from kissing the statue and praying before it .... :)

[Olga]

... there is the famous image of Christ called the "Sacred Heart" ...

As an aside, the reason why the Sacred Heart of Jesus (or the Immaculate Heart of Mary) is not part of Orthodox theology is because it is the veneration of a specific part of His body, be it human or divine. We worship Christ in his entirety, in His human and divine fullness, not separating particular bits of him to give special veneration to.

[Michael Astley]

As it was explained to me, the devotion to the Sacred Heart is that it is a devotion to the infinite mercy of God, symbolised by his heart, and not an actual devotion to his physical heart that pumped blood around his body. Indeed, I have heard the same devotion referred to as the Divine Compassion. Is this not right?

I'm not arguing for it to be included in Orthodox devotion. I'm just trying to clarify what it actually is.

[Peter Farrington]

I would have to say that formal neo-Coptic iconography is as serious and spiritual an exercise in theology as any modern Byzantine iconography.

Similar spiritual rules apply and there is a genuine ascesis in the production of icons.

Coptic religious pictures are different to Coptic icons. And of course the earliest Coptic icons always have and had their own local style, as have the Ethiopian.

There seems to be a tendency among Eastern Orthodox to consider that only that which is culturally Eastern Orthodox can be theologically Orthodox. This is not the case. It rather reflects on the much less diverse nature of Eastern Orthodoxy compared to Oriental Orthodoxy,and compared to the Catholicity of the universal Church. That is not a criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy but a matter of fact that should be taken into account. Byzantine iconography cannot be a universal, even though the theology and spirituality of Byzantine iconography is, and is present in Oriental Orthodoxy since it derives from the very earliest period.

Anglo-Saxon iconography is different from Byzantine iconography. Celtic iconography seems to derive in part from Coptic iconography. These are all genuine iconographies but are not Byzantine.

In actual fact much of the iconography in all Orthodox Churches in all places is even today not genuine iconography but has been seriously compromised by Western art forms. It is only relatively recently that real iconography has been restored to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

Thank God that He does not choose to restrict His love and grace to those who have 'proper' icons, and will bless all those who worship Him and venerate His saints, even when the medium of that veneration is a cheap print, or a poor Western imitation.

But also thank God that He has restored a proper iconography to His Church.

Surely one of the problems with folksy Coptic icons and poor quality Byzantine ones, is that too many people are being tempted or even encouraged, to think that anyone can paint icons. This is not the case of course in either Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy.

But a real Coptic icon is an icon. It is not a religious picture. My own church is adorned with beautiful icons of the very highest quality. They are not religious pictures, though I have plenty of experience of Coptic religious pictures, which in the right context are commendable, just as in Eastern Orthodoxy. But you know when you are standing before a proper icon, a beautiful icon, and I am blessed to be able to each time I am in Church.

Peter

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

Being someone who is attempting to apprentice for an iconographer and write the post-1200 western styles I found Fr. Raphael and Peter Farrington's comments particularly interesting and agree with a bit of both of them. I am reading am art history book which is attempting to explain a connection and sharing of ideas between coptic, mozarabic (spain) and carolingian iconography during the years 700-1200.
It should be remembered that the majority of egypt was still christian in 1100 AD and was a very important trading partner for western europe.

http://www.fondoimagenes.com/monumentos/montserrat%2001.jpg
http://www.mossenjoan.com/montserrat/montserrat_verge.JPG

when I see the 12th century Virgen of Montserrat made in Catalunya, Espana I often think this is exactly like an Icon and is one of the few free standing statues of her that I would consider putting in my garden. Although..it may seem out of place in the garden ......I've always thought icons in gardens is a bit awkward...perhaps not always appropriate, at least it should not to be too low on the ground? Whenever I see a Catholic statue or Armenian bas relief that has had the birds drop guano on it I feel shocked..it is natural for the bird but is it right for us to allow the bird the privilege of desecration?