View Full Version : Icon of Christ as Holy Wisdom
Andrew Kisliakov
11-12-2007, 09:42 AM
In a separate thread, it was stated, based on the canons of the Quinisext Council:
The necessity of representing Christ in human, not symbolic form is a direct rebuttal to Arianism, Nestorianism, and other heresies which did not regard Christ as fully human and fully God. It is clear from this canon that images of personifications of attributes of Christ, such as Holy Wisdom, are not permitted, but that the proper portrayal of Christ is in His revealed, incarnate form.
On the face of it, I can't see how the canon can be used to forbid this practice. In icons such as Holy Wisdom, Christ is indeed portrayed in His human form - indeed, it is this use of this human form which directly associates Christ with attributes such as Wisdom that are mentioned in the Old Testament. As far as I am aware, the connection of Wisdom - Logos - Christ has sound patristic basis.
Although it is not permitted by the said canon to depict Christ in the form of Old Testament types, it does not prohibit depiction of old Testament types "in the form of" Christ, as it were. I would even say that such depictions are actually within the spirit of the canon.
Andrew
Although it is not permitted by the said canon to depict Christ in the form of Old Testament types, it does not prohibit depiction of old Testament types "in the form of" Christ, as it were. I would even say that such depictions are actually within the spirit of the canon.
Could you please clarify this statement? I am particularly unsure of the meaning of "old Testament types "in the form of Christ", and how this relates to the images of Christ Holy Wisdom.
Andrew Kisliakov
13-12-2007, 01:37 AM
Could you please clarify this statement? I am particularly unsure of the meaning of "old Testament types "in the form of Christ", and how this relates to the images of Christ Holy Wisdom.
Dear Olga,
Of course.
The basis of the Holy Wisdom icon is the identification of Christ, or the Logos, as the Wisdom of God mentioned in the Old Testament (especially the book of Proverbs)
The icon takes the Wisdom of God, which is itself essentially unportrayable, and uses the image of the incarnate Christ to portray it.
The image specifically prohibited by Canon 82 of the Quinisext council takes Christ, who is portrayable in His incarnate form, but depicts Him instead as the Lamb of God, which is merely a metaphor.
The way I read it, the canon prohibits the use of a metaphorical image to replace that of the incarnate Christ - but not what is effectively the opposite, i.e. the use of the image of the incarnate Christ replace that which prefigures or symbolises Him.
Ultimately, the canon's aim is to safeguard the dogma of Christ's incarnation as a fully human being, which was potentially being unwittingly undermined through the excessive use of such symbolic imagery. If anything, the opposite kind of icon, such as the Holy Wisdom, would serve to strengthen the dogma of the incarnation by identifying the incarnate Christ with His manifestations in the Old Testament.
I'm a bit of a novice at this but it all seems to make perfect sense to me this way.
Andrew
The icon takes the Wisdom of God, which is itself essentially unportrayable, and uses the image of the incarnate Christ to portray it.
All versions of Christ Holy Wisdom (and the related Angel of Great Counsel and Blessed Silence) show Him as a young winged figure, neither masculine nor feminine, though in some examples, obviously feminine. Does this representation have any resemblance to the incarnate Christ?
Such images are an attempt to portray the pre-incarnate second Person of the Holy Trinity. Honourable in intent, but contrary to the canon and spirit of iconography. As I have mentioned on the sister thread on Christ Emmanuel, iconography depicts what has been revealed to us. To depict the pre-incarnate Christ makes as much sense canonically and doctrinally as painting God the Father or the Holy Spirit in any form, other than in the forms which have been revealed to us, and in the contexts where this has occurred.
(To digress a little: The Holy Spirit, like God the Father, is indescribable and unrepresentable in concrete terms. The Spirit, however, has become manifest at various times in a visible form, such as in the form of a dove at Christ’s baptism in the River Jordan, as the cloud of uncreated light surrounding Christ at His Transfiguration, and as the tongues of fire bestowed on the Apostles at Pentecost. Ecumenical Councils, and various subsequent local councils clearly establish and confirm the impossibility of portraying the Holy Spirit in other than the revealed, symbolic, forms, and only in the forms pertaining to the particular event described in scripture. Thus, the motif of the tongue of fire can only be used in the icon of Pentecost, in the same way that the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove is exclusive to icons of the Theophany.)
Below is the Orthodox Church's interpretation of Canon 82:
Since some painters paint Christ as a sheep and lamb, with the Forerunner pointing his finger at him and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world," therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that hereafter in the future this shall not be done, but instead Christ Himself shall be painted as a man, with respect to His human character, in order that by means of the human aspect we may be enabled to recall to memory His life in the flesh and His passion and His death, and the salvation of the world resulting therefrom. For, as regarding those old types of the Law, we honor and value them, out of consideration for the fact that they prefigured the truth of the Gospel and of grace, among which one was that of the lamb slaughtered on the occasion of the Passover (or Easter), taken in the image of Christ, the true Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. But now that this truth and the realities themselves have come, we prefer it and accept it rather than the types.
It is clear that Canon 82, and its interpretation is not exclusively concerned with the imagery of the lamb. It covers all prefigurative images, which would include the Wisdom representations. Other canons on iconography do indeed specifically denounce these images.
This is not so say that symbols are absent from proper, canonical icons. Christ (whether as a child, or as an adult, such as in icons of the Resurrection) is frequently shown holding a small scroll. The scroll represents the wisdom of God. Similarly, the Mother of God is always shown bearing the three stars of her perpetual virginity on her omophorion, an important dogmatic detail. But this iconographic symbolism is secondary, and never replaces the direct image.
Please accept my comments as correction, not criticism. The perpetuation of uncanonical images is a sadly neglected aspect of iconography. The thread on St Joseph the Betrothed, and the one called "Brass and Printed Icons" are cases in point. A greater awareness of what is not an icon is just as important as knowing what an icon is. It is in this spirit that I make my posts, not to denigrate anyone.
Jonathan Michael
17-12-2007, 12:49 PM
Hello,
I was going to start a seperate thread, but then was side-tracked by this discussion and thought that it may be better suited here. Sorry for intruding.
My church follows the old calendar, but in the secular calendar today is the 17th of December and is thus the Feast of The Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Children: Ananias, Azarias and Misael. There is an icon for the three holy youths that I found online:
http://missionxp.webblogg.se/ao/images/agioipaides_1177145895.jpg
which clearly identifies the winged angel within the flames as Christ (IC XC). So, I have two questions which I would like to ask:
1. Is it the traditional teaching of the church that the angel within the flames was a type of Christ?
2. Is it canonically correct to identify the angel as Christ, as I have seen other icons which do not do this - and the image did strike me. Obviously, this is one purpose for writing icons, to instruct the faithful; but am I being instructed correctly? (from the discussion above it seems that this question will not have a straighforward answer agreed upon by all).
Thank you.
Jonathan
Andrew Kisliakov
17-12-2007, 05:48 PM
Dear Olga,
Thank you for your comments.
Firstly, I agree with you personally that, to portray Christ as asexual, or feminine, is probably unacceptable (although the iconographer undoubtedly did it out of honourable intentions).
Regarding the wings - I'm not so sure. The icons of Saint John the Baptist come to mind, where he is pictured with wings, which is a symbolic reference to his ascetic life. Would you say then that this icon is also uncanonical?
Would you accept an icon of the Wisdom of God, where Christ, as Wisdom, is portrayed in His incarnate form (young or mature), as a man, without wings? For example, the first icon on this site (http://www.theikonstudio.com/paneliconsofxc.html)?
I still see this as a completely different portrayal from that prohibited by Canon 82, which only decrees that Christ must be represented in His incarnate form. According to my reading (which doesn't conflict with the canon or the interpretation that you cited), there is still nothing that, in theory, would prevent an iconographer from representing the fully incarnate Christ as the fulfilment of such types.
You mention other canons on iconography which specifically prohibit icons of this type. Can you refer me to them?
Andrew
The icon of Christ in the link you provided is completely acceptable, as it shows Christ in His revealed, incarnate form. There are many icons of Christ of this type which have "names", such as the Giver of Life, the Giver of Light, etc. By contrast, the icons of Holy Wisdom which first appeared in about the 15th-16th centuries depict Christ as a winged androgynous or feminine youth, which is contrary to canon.
Depicting St John the Baptist with wings is similarly problematic. It appears this image arose in Greece in around the time of the appearance of the Holy Wisdom images in Russia and the Slavic lands. Russian versions of a winged Baptist are quite rare, though there are a few Balkan (Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian) versions, probably through geographic influences.
Though the "logic" behind this is the description of the Baptist as the Angel (messenger) of the Desert, putting wings on him could be seen as departing from canon. Ascetic saints are frequently described as "living the angelic life", but this does not mean they can be depicted with wings in their icons. They are still, after all, entirely human. Deified, for sure, but still human in essence.
In addition to Canon 82, and the other canons I have mentioned in this thread and the sister thread on Christ Emmanuel, there are also the following:
* The special decree of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church proclaimed on May 21, 1722. This decree prohibited a whole series of icons which were deemed to be “contrary to nature, to history, and to truth itself”. Included in this list was “…the image of the Wisdom of God in the form of a winged youth or girl…”
* More recent decrees, such as those issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in May, 1935, and by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in October of the same year, also forbid such portrayals. These decrees were issued in response to the growing popularity of the Sophian heresies promoted by Vladimir Soloviev, and priests Paul Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov. These men espoused the notion that the wisdon (sophia) of God represented the "divine feminine", and had constructed an elaborate but heretical "theology" around this notion. It is quite telling that the winged wisdom image has yet again gained popularity in recent years, as it corresponds nicely to many feminist, New-Age and neo-pagan ideas on divinity and "mysticism". Plus ça change ....
My church follows the old calendar, but in the secular calendar today is the 17th of December and is thus the Feast of The Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Children: Ananias, Azarias and Misael. There is an icon for the three holy youths that I found online:
http://missionxp.webblogg.se/ao/images/agioipaides_1177145895.jpg
which clearly identifies the winged angel within the flames as Christ (IC XC). So, I have two questions which I would like to ask:
1. Is it the traditional teaching of the church that the angel within the flames was a type of Christ?
2. Is it canonically correct to identify the angel as Christ, as I have seen other icons which do not do this - and the image did strike me. Obviously, this is one purpose for writing icons, to instruct the faithful; but am I being instructed correctly? (from the discussion above it seems that this question will not have a straighforward answer agreed upon by all).
Hello Jonathan
My apologies in the delay in replying to your post. It is incorrect to portray the angel saving the holy youths with the halo associated with Christ. A very similar situation was dealt with a few centuries ago, regarding placing this type of halo on the angel at the centre of the icon of the Holy Trinity. The canonical ruling was that this is not proper. Here is the ruling, from the Stoglav Council (also known as the Council of One Hundred Chapters), held in Moscow in 1551:
In this passage from chapter forty-two of the Stoglav Council, we have the partial answer given to two of the questions asked by Tsar Ivan III:
- How should the halo be painted on the icons of the Hospitality of Abraham used as a symbolic image of the Trinity?
- What should be the title painted on the icon?
According to the Tsar, the ancient icons had no cross inscribed in the halo of the central angel representing Christ, and the only title written was The Holy Trinity and not The Holy Trinity plus Jesus Christ near the central angel.
The fathers of the council agreed completely with the Tsar and gave the following answer: “The iconographers are to reproduce the ancient models, those of the Greek iconographers, of Andrei Rublev, and of the famous painters. The Trinity is to be written on top of the icon.” They added that “painters must not follow their fantasy in anything.”
Therefore, as it is incorrect to identify the central angel using the distinctive halo of Christ, so also it is incorrect to do the same to the angel saving the holy youths.
Jonathan Michael
20-12-2007, 01:12 PM
Thank you, Olga. Just to be clear, although the representation in the Icon is not canonical, is it also incorrect teaching that the angel in the flames was a type of Christ?
Thank you again.
The icon of the angel rescuing the Holy Children is indeed canonical, as long as the angel does not have the distinctive halo used for icons of Christ. The theme of the eirmoi (irmosi) of Ode 8 of any canon sung at Matins refers to the Holy Children in the Book of Daniel, and certainly state in many cases that the angel is a type, a prefiguration, of Christ. Take this example from ode 8 of the canon for the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God:
The Offspring of the Mother of God saved the innocent Youths in the furnace. He was prefigured then, but now in reality He gathers the whole world which sings: All you works, praise the Lord, and highly exalt Him to all ages. (emphasis mine)
Types and shadows have their place, but are but an incomplete substitute for the fully revealed Christ.
Jonathan Michael
21-12-2007, 12:28 PM
Thank you Olga. Truthfully, I didn't know Christ was prefigured as the angel amongst the holy youths and so the uncanonical icon did teach me that. However, as you show your previous post, that particular teaching is present within the hymns of the Church, so it need not be present in iconography.
Andrew Kisliakov
21-12-2007, 05:21 PM
Dear Olga,
* The special decree of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church proclaimed on May 21, 1722. This decree prohibited a whole series of icons which were deemed to be “contrary to nature, to history, and to truth itself”. Included in this list was “…the image of the Wisdom of God in the form of a winged youth or girl…”
If it's not too much trouble, can you quote, or refer me to a source where I can see this decree, as I'm interested in the other specific types of icons that it prohibits. I think that this might help me understand the spirit within which these prohibitions were made.
Andrew
Jonathan Michael
08-09-2010, 07:17 PM
As today is the New Calendar celebration of the Kiev Icon of Holy Wisdom, I was reading this commentary on the icon:
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=108957
The icon shown in that link isn't the one being described in the text; it appears that the Kiev Icon is this one:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qpE5hNwi618/TIetAvhIV8I/AAAAAAAAJps/GgNZzygeZmc/s1600/wisdom+sophia+kiev.jpg
I wonder what the canonicity of the Kiev Icon - which doesn't depict Wisdom as a firey angel - is.
Jeremy Troy
09-09-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm not sure whether there's a problem with that icon's depiction of Christ as Holy Wisdom, since it is-- unlike the icons discussed earlier-- actually a depiction of Christ in his incarnate form. However, that icon would almost certainly be uncanonical due to its depiction of the Holy Spirit as a winged dove (which, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is only acceptable in the context of a Theophany icon) and its depiction of God the Father as a bearded old man (which is never acceptable).
Jeremy
Andrew Prather
10-10-2010, 08:38 AM
The first one is canonical as far as I know. The 2nd is not, Christ is depicted in a feminine way, as well as what Jeremy stated. Although in this Sophia Icon I think the woman is the Theotokos, but in others Sophia is depicted as a feminine Christ.
The first one is canonical as far as I know.
I'm afraid not, Andrew. Please refer to post #7 in this thread.
The 2nd is not, Christ is depicted in a feminine way,
The figure at the top of the stairs is the Mother of God, not Christ. This second image is the one described in the OCA link. However, your comment of Christ is depicted in a feminine way is significant.
The problem with this image is that it fails to truly express what the OCA description tells us. To place the Mother of God in such a prominent place in the composition, with the inscription Wisdom has built her house ... above her head, and the seven steps of virtue leading up to her, would easily lead many viewers of the icon to think that she is the Wisdom of God, not Christ.
The 15th-18th centuries saw the appearance, particularly in Russia, of certain didactic imagery, often of quite complex composition, which attempted to express metaphysical or symbolic aspects of Christ, abstracted ideas about Christ, or personifications of attributes of His. Examples include Only-begotten Son, Angel of Holy Silence, Holy Wisdom, You are a Priest Forever, and All-Seeing Eye of God (this last image is not the "eye in the triangle motif, but the image referred to here: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5116-The-all-seeing-eye-evil-eye&p=65241&viewfull=1#post65241)
Unfortunately, these images fail the canonicity test in various ways. Suffice to say, honourable intent, but short of the mark. The Wisdom has built her house image is one of these.
Andrew Prather
11-10-2010, 07:56 AM
I'm afraid not, Andrew. Please refer to post #7 in this thread.
The figure at the top of the stairs is the Mother of God, not Christ. This second image is the one described in the OCA link. However, your comment of Christ is depicted in a feminine way is significant.
The problem with this image is that it fails to truly express what the OCA description tells us. To place the Mother of God in such a prominent place in the composition, with the inscription Wisdom has built her house ... above her head, and the seven steps of virtue leading up to her, would easily lead many viewers of the icon to think that she is the Wisdom of God, not Christ.
The 15th-18th centuries saw the appearance, particularly in Russia, of certain didactic imagery, often of quite complex composition, which attempted to express metaphysical or symbolic aspects of Christ, abstracted ideas about Christ, or personifications of attributes of His. Examples include Only-begotten Son, Angel of Holy Silence, Holy Wisdom, You are a Priest Forever, and All-Seeing Eye of God (this last image is not the "eye in the triangle motif, but the image referred to here: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5116-The-all-seeing-eye-evil-eye&p=65241&viewfull=1#post65241)
Unfortunately, these images fail the canonicity test in various ways. Suffice to say, honourable intent, but short of the mark. The Wisdom has built her house image is one of these.
Olga, we aren't talking about the same thing. I am replying to Jonathan in post 13. The OCA icon, as far as I can tell, is completely canonical. It does not contain anything that you mention in your posts. The second quotation of mine, is taken out of context. My last sentence clarifies what I mean.
Although in this Sophia Icon I think the woman is the Theotokos, but in others Sophia is depicted as a feminine Christ.
Sorry for the confusion.
Prime examples of the Feminine Christ icons:
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/xpsophia.html
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gelos.ru/sale/ikona/bigimages/818v.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wapedia.mobi/en/Sophiology&usg=__WB1OtCtchBIr-VtiG3p4MyxrgLc=&h=700&w=559&sz=573&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=siv6zxgcUzUCzM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfeminine%2Bchrist%2Bsophia%2Bicon%26u m%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1C1RNCN_enUS349US 377%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D677%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=393&vpy=157&dur=3672&hovh=251&hovw=201&tx=46&ty=273&ei=f6myTJKqGcO88gbt46ihCQ&oei=f6myTJKqGcO88gbt46ihCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0
Andrew Prather
11-10-2010, 11:16 PM
Although now that I look closer at the OCA Icon, Sophia has longer hair and is more feminine like than traditional icons.
What decrees of the Moscow Patriarchate under the soviets are we to consider canonical or not? Florovsky, whether intentional or not, raises this question. I think it is in vol. 2 of his collected works that he examines a decree by the Moscow Patriarchate under the Soviets and considers it unorthodox. I'll post specifics when I get home.
From post #7; please note the bolded sections:
In addition to Canon 82, and the other canons I have mentioned in this thread and the sister thread on Christ Emmanuel, there are also the following:
* The special decree of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church proclaimed on May 21, 1722. This decree prohibited a whole series of icons which were deemed to be “contrary to nature, to history, and to truth itself”. Included in this list was “…the image of the Wisdom of God in the form of a winged youth or girl…”
* More recent decrees, such as those issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in May, 1935, and by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in October of the same year, also forbid such portrayals. These decrees were issued in response to the growing popularity of the Sophian heresies promoted by Vladimir Soloviev, and priests Paul Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov. These men espoused the notion that the wisdon (sophia) of God represented the "divine feminine", and had constructed an elaborate but heretical "theology" around this notion. It is quite telling that the winged wisdom image has yet again gained popularity in recent years, as it corresponds nicely to many feminist, New-Age and neo-pagan ideas on divinity and "mysticism". Plus ça change ....
(The above was taken from http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1675-Brass-and-printed-icons&p=20247&viewfull=1#post20247 )
The winged Christ was seen as theologically and iconographically problematic centuries before the Soviet period. As for the canonicity or otherwise of the decree of the MP in 1935, ROCOR, whose relationship with the MP was hardly cordial, issued its own condemnation of this image. These decrees, and all those which have preceded them, are really more specific iterations of Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council:
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.
To insist that metaphysical, prefigurational or symbolic images of Christ are acceptable as icons is a form of Judaism. Canon 82 makes it clear that Christ be portrayed in icons as God Incarnate, as He was revealed to us, and not as a "type and shadow" which is what these prefigurative and metaphysical images (winged Christ, Lamb of God, etc) are.
Jason H.
12-10-2010, 02:54 AM
So, is this one wrong b/c it's on my Icon corner....
http://www.skete.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=532&CFID=366462&CFTOKEN=20406965
I'm afraid, yes, Jason. :( But how were you to know at the time? I never criticise honest ignorance.
But I truly wish that iconographers and stores which sell icons were better educated in what images are not acceptable as icons, and discontinue painting them, or stocking them.
Yolanda
12-10-2010, 12:48 PM
Sophia the Sacred Wisdom:
http://www.godaughter.com/image/SophiatheSacredWisdom.jpg
Andrew Prather
13-10-2010, 01:00 AM
These are honest questions that I have.
Does not the Church I belong to decide what is right for me or not? If the OCA determines a sophia icon is acceptable, is it not acceptable for this community unless the wider Orthodox community in council say otherwise? The Canons of Trullo include very important canons that the Church recognizes today, such as canons concerning marriage. But also included are canons that say that an Orthodox member is not to have interaction with Jewish people (a paraphrase) or else be considered anathema. There is also a canon against being in Theater and those who are are considered anathema. Women are not to ware clothing suitable to men and vise versa. Those who do are anathema. Are we to follow these canons still today? What about Orthodox movies? And also, laymen aren't allowed to teach or debate in public. Lay persons are not to enter the Iconostasis, yet what about altar servers? Women are not allowed to speak at the time of the Divine liturgy. We are also not allowed to go to the theatre or else be considered anathema. Are Orthodox really not allowed to marry the non-Orthodox today? If a child or anyone draws a cross on pavement with chalk that child is to be considered anathema? Has the Church decided that some of these canons are not applicable today?
Anyone who takes an oath of the Nations (Gentile, ethnos) is to be excommunicated? Military personnel, police officers, ect?
Those who by baptism have put on Christ have professed that they will copy his manner of life which he led in the flesh. Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls, we take in hand to cure paternally with a suitable punishment: training them and teaching them to live soberly, in order that having laid aside the deceit and vanity of material things, they may give their minds continually to a life which is blessed and free from mischief, and have their conversation in fear, pure, [and holy]; and thus come as near as possible to God through their purity of life; and adorn the inner man rather than the outer, and that with virtues, and good and blameless manners, so that they leave in themselves no remains of the left-handedness of the adversary. But if any shall act contrary to the present canon let him be cut off.
If the OCA determines a sophia icon is acceptable, is it not acceptable for this community unless the wider Orthodox community in council say otherwise?
There is no evidence that the Sophia "icon" has been officially approved by the OCA. The OCA also has an "icon" of St Joseph the Betrothed holding the Christ-child, in the way that the Mother of God holds her Son; this sort of portrayal goes against what the Orthodox Church teaches about St Joseph. I'm sure these images found their way onto the OCA website through the ir webmaster, who might honestly not be aware of the error of such images.
Iconographers, despite more than 1200 years of canonical prohibition, continue to paint God the Father as a bearded old man to this day. Does this make these images theologically correct because they continue to be painted? Think about it.
Lay persons are not to enter the Iconostasis, yet what about altar servers?
Laymen are indeed allowed behind the iconostasis, after having been given a blessing to do so, whether by the priest, or, in some cases, by the bishop. Altarboys, the warden (neokoros, starosta, sacristan) of the church, readers, etc are given this blessing, as well as other males whom the priest or bishop deems to be worthy to be allowed this privilege.
Women are not normally allowed into the inner sanctum, yet, there are instances where women have ideed been given a bishop's blessing to do so. In the church I have attended for the past 13 years, a woman (who is not a nun) was blessed to enter the altar area to paint the icons in the apse, including the icon of the Mother of God high above the altar. Of the three iconographers who painted the walls of this church (an abbot, and one of his monks being the others), she had the particular talent to paint on curved surfaces. Her work is a testament to her abilities, to the continued glory of God.
Giannis Laderos
26-08-2011, 05:54 PM
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/search_object_details.aspx?objectId=58626&partId=1&orig=%2Fresearch%2Fonline_research_catalogues%2Fru ssian_icons%2Fcatalogue_of_russian_icons.aspx&sortBy=catNumber&numpages=12&catalogueOnly=true&catparentPageId=25391&output=bibliography/!!/OR/!!/6256/!//!/A%20Catalogue%20of%20the%20Russian%20Icons%20in%20 the%20British%20Museum/!//!!//!!!/¤tPage=3 the OCA icon of Holy Wisdom is fully canonical hence a full explanation of the icon from the british museum...
Herman Blaydoe
26-08-2011, 06:30 PM
For the specific icon in the latest link, I believe that it is the CHURCH being portrayed as "Holy Wisdom" not Christ. In this icon "Holy Wisdom" (the Church) is flanked by the Mother of God who protects it and John the Baptist who proclaims it, under Christ its founder and Head.
Therefore the problem of Christ being portrayed as "Holy Wisdom" is not present in this icon, whatever canonical issues may or may not be associated with it.
Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh
http://www.britishmuseum.org/researc...¤tPage=3 the OCA icon of Holy Wisdom is fully canonical hence a full explanation of the icon from the british museum...
The image of the winged androgynous figure representing Holy Wisdom remains uncanonical, for the reasons I have given in various posts on this thread, and in the "Brass and printed icons" thread, found here: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1675-Brass-and-printed-icons
The mere presence of an image in a cultural institution, even one as renowned as the British Museum, does not confer canonicity upon it. Even the famed Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow has a number of uncanonical "icons" in its collection. All this means is that museums and galleries generally regard icons as objects of cultural, artistic and historic significance. But, all too often, such an approach misses the point completely.
I base what I write, both on this and other threads, on what the Church has to say in her conciliar, doctrinal and liturgical deposit about such imagery, and not on the explanatory notes of museum curators.
For the specific icon in the latest link, I believe that it is the CHURCH being portrayed as "Holy Wisdom" not Christ. In this icon "Holy Wisdom" (the Church) is flanked by the Mother of God who protects it and John the Baptist who proclaims it, under Christ its founder and Head.
Therefore the problem of Christ being portrayed as "Holy Wisdom" is not present in this icon, whatever canonical issues may or may not be associated with it.
Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh
My dear Pooh, the image in the British Museum is precisely of the compositional type which has been denounced repeatedly by the Church over the centuries. If you look closely (click on the image in the link for an enlarged version), the winged enthroned figure bears the distinctive halo found on icons of Christ. Therefore, this central figure cannot represent the Church.
Giannis Laderos
27-08-2011, 10:36 AM
The winged figure does not represent holy wisdom, rather the mighty angel from the revelation 10:1. The "little scroll" in the angel s hand represents holy wisdom not the angel himself...
Giannis Laderos
27-08-2011, 09:23 PM
http://www.stsophia.org/photo/cathedral/img_0677.htm now i have a question. This is a very rare divine wisdom icon where there is the representation of the holy trinity showing the ancient of days along with the agnus dei and the holy ghost. This is the iconostasis icon of the greek orthodox cathedral in Los Angeles.
Any comments about how canonical such representation might be?
Jonathan Michael
27-08-2011, 09:53 PM
The winged figure does not represent holy wisdom, rather the mighty angel from the revelation 10:1. The "little scroll" in the angel s hand represents holy wisdom not the angel himself...
They do look similar, but the image you are thinking of is one similar to this one:
http://www.templegallery.com/items/1300-1399/1325/full.jpg
...which is an image of Archangel Michael, according to the Slavonic inscription. The Icon Herman posted is indeed meant to represent Jesus Christ - again, it is the inscription (in this case in the Halo) that gives it away. Icons convey much meaning in their images, but they do often use words as well to clearly identify what is what (that goes for both canonical and uncanonical icons).
Herman Blaydoe
27-08-2011, 10:05 PM
http://www.stsophia.org/photo/cathedral/img_0677.htm now i have a question. This is a very rare divine wisdom icon where there is the representation of the holy trinity showing the ancient of days along with the agnus dei and the holy ghost. This is the iconostasis icon of the greek orthodox cathedral in Los Angeles.
Any comments about how canonical such representation might be?
There are several comments in other threads, try searching on "Ancient of Days". No it is not canonical.
Daniel R.
27-08-2011, 10:10 PM
http://www.stsophia.org/photo/cathedral/img_0677.htm now i have a question. This is a very rare divine wisdom icon where there is the representation of the holy trinity showing the ancient of days along with the agnus dei and the holy ghost. This is the iconostasis icon of the greek orthodox cathedral in Los Angeles.
Any comments about how canonical such representation might be? I believe it's complete un-canonical for one God the Father did not assume our nature and should not be displayed as having done so. Two I believe in Orthodox Theology Christ is the Ancient of Days. Three if I remember rightly there it was stated at one of the synods that Christ should be shown as God-Man not as a lamb.
In Christ.
Daniel,
The winged figure does not represent holy wisdom, rather the mighty angel from the revelation 10:1. The "little scroll" in the angel s hand represents holy wisdom not the angel himself...
I'm sorry, Gianni, but this is not correct. The enthroned angel is clearly identified as Christ in these images, through the presence of the halo bearing the name of God which is exclusively used in icons of Christ, and the presence of the inscription IC-XC. The angel from Revelation, on horseback, triumphant over evil, is clearly inscribed Archangel Michael, and refers to his leading of the heavenly hosts as their commander-in-chief (taxiarkhos) in the final battle between good and evil.
http://www.stsophia.org/photo/cathedral/img_0677.htm (http://www.stsophia.org/photo/cathedral/img_0677.htm) now i have a question. This is a very rare divine wisdom icon where there is the representation of the holy trinity showing the ancient of days along with the agnus dei and the holy ghost. This is the iconostasis icon of the greek orthodox cathedral in Los Angeles.
Any comments about how canonical such representation might be?
The short answer to this is that such an image is completely uncanonical. I, and others, have posted at length on various threads, including this one, on this forum explaining why.
I might also add that this cathedral, built in the late 1940s, also bears a Platytera icon of the Mother of God in the apse above the altar, where the Virgin's face has been painted to resemble the actress Loretta Young, who was very popular at the time. This, too, is completely unacceptable, as it destroys the mandatory connection between the iconographic portrayal and the prototype (the saint being represented in the icon). Did Miss Young conceive and give birth to the Son of God? Of course she didn't. Yet, in using her face as the model for the Virgin, this is exactly what this image is proclaiming.
This short thread contains much that is useful and relevant:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?4397-Icon-of-Christ-Emmanuel
Kosta
28-08-2011, 09:41 PM
Below is the Orthodox Church's interpretation of Canon 82:
Since some painters paint Christ as a sheep and lamb, with the Forerunner pointing his finger at him and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world," therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that hereafter in the future this shall not be done, but instead Christ Himself shall be painted as a man, with respect to His human character, in order that by means of the human aspect we may be enabled to recall to memory His life in the flesh and His passion and His death, and the salvation of the world resulting therefrom. For, as regarding those old types of the Law, we honor and value them, out of consideration for the fact that they prefigured the truth of the Gospel and of grace, among which one was that of the lamb slaughtered on the occasion of the Passover (or Easter), taken in the image of Christ, the true Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. But now that this truth and the realities themselves have come, we prefer it and accept it rather than the types.
.[/LEFT]
Just wondering where i can find this commentary? Is that from a saint or Church Father?
Kosta, it is the interpretation of Canon 82 from the Rudder.
And here is the text of the Canon itself:
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 to 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 saving death and, thus, deliverance which took place for the world.
Jonathan Michael
29-08-2011, 11:43 PM
And here is the text of the Canon itself:
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 to 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 saving death and, thus, deliverance which took place for the world.
Interesting that the canon should name images of John the Forerunner pointing to "the Lamb" because I wonder if this proscription led to images like the one below, showing the Infant Christ in a chalice:
http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/96/96293.jpeg
There seems to be quite a few Russian examples of this icon, and the inscription on the scroll is "Behold the Lamb of God" (usually, not sure in the example I gave because I cannot read Slavonic). I was actually going to ask this question on the other icon thread, but as the specific point of John pointing to the Lamb was brought up here I may as well post here: are there any legitimate objections to this icon? It seems an explicitly Eucharistic Icon, though now I wonder if the canon also helped in inspiring this image (in an attempt to "clean-up" the proscribed images mentioned in the canon).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.