Venerating icons of other traditions?

[Elzabet]

A friend of mine was made to feel that she had done something spiritually wrong by venerating a Coptic icon given her by a friend. Should this be a concern--whether an icon is from this or that jurisdiction? I thought it was the saint being venerated that was important not the icon itself. Am I mistaken?

[Kris]

A friend of mine was made to feel that she had done something spiritually wrong by venerating a Coptic icon given her by a friend. Should this be a concern--whether an icon is from this or that jurisdiction? I thought it was the saint being venerated that was important not the icon itself. Am I mistaken?

This is certainly nothing to loose sleep over. The Coptic iconographic tradition (which is not too disimilar from that of the Georgian Church) is just as valid as the style used in the Byzantine tradition.

Ideally, an icon should be prayerfully written by a pious and devoted person from within the Church. But I don't believe one has to take this as some kind of absolute.

Most icons you find for sale in Orthodox churches, bookshops, online, etc. are prints. I can't say for certain, but I doubt there was a huge amount of prayer and fasting involved when the manufacturer pressed "print" and glued it onto a piece of wood.

I would not have a problem venerating a Byzantine icon painted by a Uniate Catholic, despite his obvious adherance to heresy (provided this was not aparent in the icon itself of course). So I certainly would not have a problem venerating an icon coming from any of the OO churches, whose tradition is virtually identical to our own in pretty much all but semantics.

At the ROCOR monastery I occasionally attend, where the monks consider Copts both heretical and schismatic, there is nevertheless a Coptic icon proudly displayed above the entrance to the Church.

So your friend has nothing to worry about as far as I'm concerned.

In XC,
Kris

[Yeshua Pineault]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Does the Syriac iconographic tradition have the same type of validity as the Coptic tradition? Granted, Syriac iconography is not nearly as prevalent nor ubiquitously used as other traditions do so with their iconography. Many art historians call Syrian iconography as a precursor to both the Coptic and Byzantine tradition, yet many, tragically, see it as seen as "elementary" and "animated" which somehow gives credence to those who do not see the Syriac tradition in validity. Thank you for your response!

May the Holy Yoldath Aloho Bless and Protect You

[Elzabet]

Thank you for the responses. I've not studied the theology of icons (yet) so I was curious too.

[Kris]

Does the Syriac iconographic tradition have the same type of validity as the Coptic tradition?

I can't see anything about the Syriac iconographic tradition that would make it less valid than the Coptic one.

[Elena]

May I ask a question about the iconography of a specific western icon. Since childhood I've felt strongly drawn to the depiction in the Wilton Diptych, but the badges the angels wear have always made me slightly uneasy so I've refrained from venerating it although I do have a copy in my home, however if it's style and content are valid I would very much like to.

[Andreas Moran]

May I ask a question about the iconography of a specific western icon. Since childhood I've felt strongly drawn to the depiction in the Wilton Diptych, but the badges the angels wear have always made me slightly uneasy so I've refrained from venerating it although I do have a copy in my home, however if it's style and content are valid I would very much like to.

http://madameevangelista.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wilton_diptych.jpg

This is the Wilton Diptych.

I would not have thought that it could be venerated as an icon; it is not Orthodox in its origins and iconography. There is also the question of its purpose - it affirms King Richard II's own view of his kingship which is why the angels wear his livery, the White Hart. The pennant is the flag of England. As has been mentioned elsewhere, some western works of art may prompt devotion but may not be venerated as icons. The Wilton Diptych certainly expresses the genuine devotion King Richard II had for the Virgin Mary, and indeed England was known for centuries (since 1055 probably) until before the Reformation as 'Mary's Dowry' because of the widespread devotion here to the Virgin Mary. It is an exceptionally rare and fine example of the International Gothic style, and if it serves as a model for devotion, fair enough. But it cannot be venerated.

[Michael Astley]

While I am unsettled by the oft-seen knee-jerk reaction against things that express Orthodoxy simply because they are not of the Byzantine/Slavic tradition, (which I haven't really seen at all on this forum but sometimes do in real life), I do share Reader Andreas' concern for being too willing to venerate any and every image that bears some resemblance to an icon.

As we look at icons, which are still and moving, it is easy to forget that they do not simply appear, nor does the icon upon which we are gazing exist in isolation. Pick up any icon and it will be part of an inherited tradition, which will have influenced the icon itself. There are many elements to our Orthodox iconography which have, over time, become fixed as they have been influenced by our expression of our doctrine and in turned influenced it. To suddenly take an icon from a tradition which has, for centuries, been removed from the Tradition of the Church, and to transplant it into an Orthodox household is cause for careful scrutiny.

Of course there is nothing about the Coptic iconographic style that is cause for concern, but what about the content? Does it express Orthodox teaching? As we absorb doctrine from Orthodox icons, is there anything in icons that are not of Orthodox origin of that we should be careful? For instance, is there a reason why the Saviour is here (http://www.coptic.net/pictures/Icon.ChristTheSavior.gif) depicted blessing with one finger?

These are questions that I think we need to ask ourselves, and under the guidance of a spiritual father or somebody who is steeped in the Orthodox iconographic tradition.

In Christ,
Michael

[Eric Peterson]

I have a few Coptic icons of scenes from the Lord's Passion and Crucifixion. When I got them, I did not detect deviation from Orthodox theology. However, there are Coptic icons which, I think, do deviate--most obviously icons of persons under anathema, but also, to my mind, icons in which Christ blesses with one raised finger instead of the ancient two and the more "recent" three (holding the hand in the ICXC position). I thought this was questionable.

[Olga]

While it may not apply to the Wilton Diptych, another factor to consider when evaluating religious art is whether the holy ones portrayed have been modelled on specific persons who are not the persons depicted in the painting. It was a common practice for western medieval and, particularly, Renaissance artists to paint the Virgin to resemble someone living, such as the wife or daughter of the patron commissioning the work, or to paint a saint as a self-portrait, as did Michelangelo in the Last Judgement panel in the Sistine Chapel - Michelangelo used his own face as the model for Apostle Bartholomew. Religious paintings were also often infused with content reflecting the politics or events of the day. By contrast, proper iconography insists that the model for a saint be that person, and no other (or, if there is no reliable prototype, iconographers resort to a "generic" face, with other details in the icon fleshing out the story and characteristics of the saint). Iconography is also a proclamation of the truths of the Faith, and not a vehicle for self-aggrandisement or political/historical commentary.

This illustrates in a small way the theological and doctrinal divergence between Orthodox iconography and the art which developed in the west after the Great Schism. Enjoy and appreciate western religious art by all means, as I do, but be very wary of venerating such art as an icon.

[Jonathan Michael]

As we look at icons, which are still and moving, it is easy to forget that they do not simply appear...

Some miraculous icons do :) but I agree with the point you were making about the importance of icons we venerate coming from the mind of the Church, rather than from elsewhere.

On a related note, what about Orthodox-style icons in non-Orthodox churches? This seems quite common in Anglican cathedrals especially, and a number I have been to - Norwich and York being two examples - contain Orthodox icons. In style and content these are certainly Orthodox, but I am unsure as to whether they are merely good copies made by pious heterodox, or genuine Orthodox icons that have been gifted to, or bought by, the cathedral. In York cathedral - dedicated to St. Peter - there is a byzantine style icon of St. Peter with a red icon lamp burning before it. To see such icons being treated "properly" in non-Orthodox churches is very heartening, but what is it proper for me to do before such icons? My natural reaction is one of respect, yet I also have a mixture of feelings: I am drawn to venerate the icon, but then something holds me back.

[Andreas Moran]

Some miraculous icons do :) but I agree with the point you were making about the importance of icons we venerate coming from the mind of the Church, rather than from elsewhere.

On a related note, what about Orthodox-style icons in non-Orthodox churches? This seems quite common in Anglican cathedrals especially, and a number I have been to - Norwich and York being two examples - contain Orthodox icons. In style and content these are certainly Orthodox, but I am unsure as to whether they are merely good copies made by pious heterodox, or genuine Orthodox icons that have been gifted to, or bought by, the cathedral. In York cathedral - dedicated to St. Peter - there is a byzantine style icon of St. Peter with a red icon lamp burning before it. To see such icons being treated "properly" in non-Orthodox churches is very heartening, but what is it proper for me to do before such icons? My natural reaction is one of respect, yet I also have a mixture of feelings: I am drawn to venerate the icon, but then something holds me back.

Certainly some icons in Church of England churches are by Orthodox iconographers. A well-known example is the series of icons in Winchester cathedral painted by a noted Russian icon painter. Why are they there? Partly just fashion, I suspect. If you know it's a 'proper' Orthodox icon, why not venerate it? If unsure, follow the golden rule - 'neither accept nor reject'.

[Elena]

http://madameevangelista.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wilton_diptych.jpg

I would not have thought that it could be venerated as an icon; it is not Orthodox in its origins and iconography.

My thanks for answering, I thought that was very very likely to be the case. I should have mentioned that my copy is of the right hand panel only, but no the badges, composition and banner did always make me feel it was not orthodox despite it's beauty and spiritual nature.

Must an icon be Orthodox in it's origin to be venerated? I had previously thought so but earlier posts in this thread seemed to imply that as long as the iconography was sound it was permissible to venerate the icon, hence my question about the Wilton Diptych's iconography as I have no knowledge, only my unreliable instincts, about iconography.

[Olga]

Jonathan, you wrote:


On a related note, what about Orthodox-style icons in non-Orthodox churches? This seems quite common in Anglican cathedrals especially, and a number I have been to - Norwich and York being two examples - contain Orthodox icons. In style and content these are certainly Orthodox, but I am unsure as to whether they are merely good copies made by pious heterodox, or genuine Orthodox icons that have been gifted to, or bought by, the cathedral. In York cathedral - dedicated to St. Peter - there is a byzantine style icon of St. Peter with a red icon lamp burning before it. To see such icons being treated "properly" in non-Orthodox churches is very heartening, but what is it proper for me to do before such icons? My natural reaction is one of respect, yet I also have a mixture of feelings: I am drawn to venerate the icon, but then something holds me back.

If what is depicted in an icon is consistent with Orthodoxy, then, all else being equal, there is nothing wrong with an Orthodox believer praying and crossing himself before a canonical icon painted by a non-Orthodox person, or a canonical icon hanging in a non-Orthodox church. Quite a few non-Orthodox people who, for whatever reason, became interested in painting icons, have, through this interest, converted to Orthodoxy. One such convert I know personally was an Anglican priest for many years. Icons are also displayed in museums, art galleries and travelling exhibitions. While everyone else is admiring the icon as a work of art, the pious Orthodox are crossing themselves and praying before it, as if at their icon corner or at church. The holiness of an icon is not constrained by its venue.

[Andreas Moran]

Jonathan, you wrote:



If what is depicted in an icon is consistent with Orthodoxy, then, all else being equal, there is nothing wrong with an Orthodox believer praying and crossing himself before a canonical icon painted by a non-Orthodox person, or a canonical icon hanging in a non-Orthodox church. Quite a few non-Orthodox people who, for whatever reason, became interested in painting icons, have, through this interest, converted to Orthodoxy. One such convert I know personally was an Anglican priest for many years. Icons are also displayed in museums, art galleries and travelling exhibitions. While everyone else is admiring the icon as a work of art, the pious Orthodox are crossing themselves and praying before it, as if at their icon corner or at church. The holiness of an icon is not constrained by its venue.

Above all, I think of St Andrei Rublev's icon of the Holy Trinity which hangs in the State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow - how can one stand in front of that and not cross oneself?!

[Olga]

May I comment on this part of Rdr Kris's earlier post:

Ideally, an icon should be prayerfully written by a pious and devoted person from within the Church. But I don't believe one has to take this as some kind of absolute.

Most icons you find for sale in Orthodox churches, bookshops, online, etc. are prints. I can't say for certain, but I doubt there was a huge amount of prayer and fasting involved when the manufacturer pressed "print" and glued it onto a piece of wood.


Are not the printed icons simply reproductions of hand-painted icons which were indeed painted with due prayer, reverence and fasting? A look at this thread should help:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?4868-Status-of-print-and-digital-icons

A relevant excerpt:


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 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.