Renaissance: Sculptures, Worship of Man, Perversions, and -isms.

[Maria]

I have copied jdigrande post as the new OP, then split out some posts in order to start two new threads: this one concerning the Renaissance, and a second one concerning Francis of Assisi (transferred to Misc, which can be found at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... 37&t=12562)

Maria
Administrator

[Agios_Irineos]

The canon regarding statues is in the Rudder. I do not have a copy of it but it was decided at the Council of Trullo (681) whose canons were amended onto the formal 6th Council against the Monothelite heresy. Another canon of Trullo dealt with the marriage of lay priests being canonical. All types of statues were commonplace in public places and outside of churched from 330-1453 in the Byzantine Empire.

I do have a copy of the Rudder, and I am having a hard time finding anything about statues in the Canons of the 6th council. In fact, in the section on the 7th council, there is extensive commentary on idols, statues and icons and the fact that Orthodox do not adore or manufacture statues. In that section they cite several reasons for this, but do not mention any canon of the 6th council. I would rather expect that this would be prominently featured in the argument against statues.

Do you have any other references on this 6th council statue. I'd like to see it.

[jdigrande]

Dear Vladika: I do not have any information on the 6th Council and statues. What does it actually say about statues in the 7th Council. No statues inside or outside of Church? St. Constantine was already in the middle of the city by 787. Or does it just refer to statues of Christ or the Theotokos inside or outside of churches? I do not have the Rudder

Thank you for any help in this matter.

[Agios_Irineos]

Dear Vladika: I do not have any information on the 6th Council and statues. What does it actually say about statues in the 7th Council. No statues inside or outside of Church? St. Constantine was already in the middle of the city by 787. Or does it just refer to statues of Christ or the Theotokos inside or outside of churches? I do not have the Rudder

Thank you for any help in this matter.

I'll copy it to you later tonight when I am at my office. The council itself does not say anything specific to statues, but the commentary is quite specific.

[Cyprian]

Cyprian:
The Roman sculptures from the 4th century do depict the Trinity. But sculptures are not allowed in Orthodox Church by way of the Council of Trullo (the 6th Council) three hundred plus years later.

I do not wish begin a petty dispute about what precisely constitutes a "sculpture" or a "statue" and whether some canon you have in mind expressly forbids it. I will simply point out that the topic of three-dimensional art it is not as black and white as might be supposed. The Seventh Ecumenical Council sanctioned gold and silver dove figurines, which can still be found in the Church to this day. Then there are three-dimensional raised carvings often found on iconostases, rizas, etc. that have found acceptance in the Church.

The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787
Session The Fifth

Antony a Monk read from the "Petition of the Clergy and the Monks of Antioch, the Great City of the Holy Church of God, which was presented to the Holy Council which was assembled in this Royal City, against Severus the Heretic and Head of the Acephali" which begins:― "Now if ever it is time O ye most holy." And, shortly after, it continues:―With the fame of his atrocious deeds at the fountains of Daphne, how then he made use of magic arts and with accursed incantations worshipped demons, all that city resounds. Nor hath he spared either the sacred altars or the holy vessels: the former he scraped as if they were profane things: the latter he melted down and appropriated to himself and his comrades; and further O ye most blessed men, he has dared even this―to take for his own the gold and silver doves which were suspended over the divine fonts and altars, saying that doves ought not to be called the Holy Ghost."

Tarasius: "If the fathers allowed these doves to be suspended in the name of the Holy Ghost, how much more would they have allowed images of the Word who was incarnate and was seen by us? But could ye believe it―Anastasius who presided at Constantinople appropriated to his own use gold and silver images as did Severus before him."

My only possible objection to the Trinity ikon is the insertion of a triangle within the ikon. It is a matter of debate whether this is a Latin innovative insertion into an otherwise Orthodox ikon.

I hardly think the use of a triangle on an icon merits a lengthy debate. There are ancient examples dating back centuries in the Church, and triangles on icons can be found both in the GOC and all over Mount Athos. However, the hexagram, or six-pointed star, with a downward pointing triangle intersecting an upright triangle, is not found in ancient Orthodox tradition, but is the sign of the Antichrist.

Christ was also energetically and symbolically depicted as a fish in many catacomb paintings in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Do you know of any ikons of fish in GOC churches nowadays? I do not think so. There are none in RTOC churches that I have been in.

The point is, there is a long history and established tradition in the Church of images depicting the Father, that has never disappeared or diminished. There are countless examples all over the Church in every part of the world, up until present times. If depictions of Christ as a fish or a lamb in the earliest centuries were eventually abandoned and were never established as a long-held tradition, this is not analogous to the example of images of God the Father, which have become long-established and widely accepted all throughout the Church.

If a council arose, which sought to abolish or forbid veneration of these icons after countless centuries of widespread veneration in the Church, this should be considered a lawless act of iconoclasm.

But my point is that there are scholars who disagree about this.

Scholars frequently disagree about a lot of things! However, the Church has spoken through Her living tradition. Images of the Father have existed in the Church from ancient times, in every part of the world. Images of the Father have found universal acceptance. It is only in these last times, that certain renovationist "scholars" have found these holy images objectionable.

To really understand, agree or disagree with their point of view they must be read.

I have read books and articles written about the subject, have personally debated those who take issue with images of the Father many times over the years, and I believe I have heard most, if not all, of the common objections made in order to attempt to justify rejections of these images. All of the arguments I have observed put forth are specious or spurious, illogical, and not in agreement with the theology of the Church and the phronema of the Fathers.

I am not an expert. It would be helpful if a bibliography of both sides would be inserted on this site so that the normal reader here can consider both sides (or more sides than that) and decide for themselves. I have read a few books on both sides but am not an expert. It is apparent you have studied this issue more than me but I am not sure you are an expert and/or have published works supporting your view which have been reviewed by other historical experts in this field.

I do not claim to be an expert either. However, all of the arguments that have been made by those rejecting these images are spurious and false, and are not in agreement with the theology of the Church. It makes no difference to me if someone is regarded as an "expert" or not. If their arguments contradict the revealed tradition of the Church, and are theologically incorrect or imprecise, then their arguments are to be rejected, no matter how much of an "expert" they pretend to be. Oftentimes the opinions of so-called "experts" and so-called "theologians" are wrong, and all that is required is common sense paired with humility.

As far as ikonoclasm (the destruction of ikons and persecution of people and churches because of those ikons), it is a stretch to extend that term (the destruction of ikons) to some of the usual suspects involved on this site in my view.

I am content to simply demonstrate that the erroneous opinions held by those who reject or despise images of the Father are not theologically justifiable, and how their rejection of images of the Father contravene the long-established tradition of the Church. It is not necessary to brandish them all as iconoclasts. It is enough to simply show that they are in error, and no one should follow their errors.

[jdigrande]

Cyprian:

Thank you for your reply. I think it would be beneficial for you or someone like you to write down all the times God the Father and the Son of God appeared to the saints in the Old Testament. And to attach commentary by the saints in the New Testament backing up all those visions.

The complexity of the topic arises because in the Old and New Testaments both the Father and/or The Son appear as an old man. On our ikons the Dove appears and the hand of God appears above the saint coming from the upper right side of the ikons. I assume that this hand of God is a symbolic or allegorical depiction of the Hand of I assume (God the Father or the Son). I have no idea whose hand it is energetically and it might vary from ikon to ikon.

Indeed the entire Old and New Testament has been interpreted through the patristic consensus both in allegorical and literal methods. Alexandria was the basis of the allegorical school practiced by the saints before the advent of the Monophysites and Antioch was the center of the more literal school.
The patristic consensus renders both methods complimentary.

I assume the hand of God in many of our ikons: and from Sinai which is the one of the oldest sources prior to ikonoclasm is allegorical in nature. The
Trinity ikon which has been a source of contention among the GOC in the last 30 years is painted by a Russian saint and regarded as the Trinity ikon by way of allegory I assume.

As in the interpretation of Scripture from both allegorical and literal means, I assume ikonography admits the same or am I wrong?

The only experts are our saints and Councils but there is a need for books describing these . The different sides of the subject have been defended by people and churches on this site as deriving from the saints and various councils. In any polemical discussion in any Council, the prior Councils and commentary by saints have been used to defend or attack. It is the patristic consensus that counts and in my view there needs to be a book that deals with this in detail.

Charging individuals with the heresy of ikonography in public is a serious charge that must rely on the 7th Council for its prosecution. It also requires a public and canonical trial to condemn any such person. And that person has to be summoned before such a canonical trial. A book that describes all that you posit would be a great help for the normal Orthodox person to stay away from heresy as described in the 7th Council. Thank you for studying this for the number of years that you have done it.

[jdigrande]

Cyprian:

I found a quote from St. John Chrysostom that seems to back up your view:

"What then shall we answer to the mighty voice of Isaiah, when he says, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. (Isa.6:1) and to John himself testifying of Him that "He said these things when he was in His Glory'? (c.12:14). What also to Ezekiel? For he too beheld Him sitting above the Cherubim (Ezek.1 and 10). What to Daniel? For he says "The Ancient of Days did sit" (Daniel. 7:9) what to Moses himself saying, "Show me Your glory, that I may see You, so as to know You." (Ex.33:13) And Jacob took hid name from this very thing, being called Israel; for Israel is "one who sees God"...
It is to declare that all these were instances of His condescension, not the vision of the essence itself unveiled." Homily XV on John I,1 B#57, p 51

St. John Chrysostom was of the Antiochian School as far as interpreting the Bible which tended to seek out and literal interpretation more than the school of Alexandria. Correct me if I am wrong but the last sentence here states that humans can only see God the Father energetically (according to St. Gregory Palamas) and never can behold His essence.

The Biblical phrase "No man has seen God" (the Father) or the Holy Spirit for that matter (or the Son in His Essence) relates to the fact that no man can see the Trinity in its essence.

You have said on other posts that ikons of the Trinity or God the Father are 1000 years old. Can you tell me where these ikons originated from?

I ask this question because about twenty years ago I read two more experts on this topic: St. Theodore the Studite and St. John of Damascus. They wrote books defending ikons of Christ, the Theotokos and the saints. In both books they stressed the difference between venerating ikons and worshipping them as idols. What is and was amazing to me is that they never spoke of defending ikons of God the Father or the Trinity in either book. I do not have the books right now but perhaps you do and can check.

All of the ikonoclast arguments were destroyed by the Orthodox following 843, much like St. Tsar Theodosius the Great destroyed the great pagan library in Alexandria in the 4th century with its books of occult and demonic magic etc. So we don't know for sure the details that the ikonoclasts used and which promulgated from 717-843.

But circumstantially it seems the ikonoclasts never attacked the ikons of God the Father and The Trinity because there were no ikons present to attack prior to 843 east of Sicily.If they attacked them, then St. John and St. Theodore would have replied or at least mentioned them.

The only place in the East where ikons prior to 717 exist to this day in the east are in Sinai. And since ikons (and the paint) in (the West) do not last 1500 years due to humidity we do not know what existed in the West (from Sicily westward) prior to 717. Fresco is another type of ikon that does not last in humidity. Only mosaics can last and only in Ravenna does there seem to be a record of ikons at the time of St. Justinian.

So based on this, it seems that ikons of God the Father or the Trinity were not made prior to 843. Why? I have not idea and am confused by this.

So where and when did these ikons of God the Father and the Trinity originate from? Do we know if they were depicted in Hagia Sophia on mosaics? I have looked at Chora and they are not there. Perhaps the Muslims covered them up at Hagia Sophia and have not decided to let them be uncovered.

About 1000 years ago the heretical West started promulgating the idea that the essence of God can be discerned by men. Did these ikons arise then with the intent of depicting the essence of God the Father or the Trinity. About 1000 years ago John Italus brought humanism to Constantinople along with the Venetians. There were several councils devoted to John Italus in Constantinople. Did the ikons of the Trinity that were brought there seek to denote the essence of God rather than His energies as described by St. John Chrysostom? And if so, were these ikons few and far between in the following 1000 years?

With the coming of the Latins after 1453 they brought the heresy of Thomas Aquinas and Anselm concerning the Essence of God and of course they brought the religious paintings of God the Father en masse to the East (touching the hand of Adam by Michelangelo for instance). Didn't Thomas Aquinas and Anselm reject the dogma of the energies of God being manifested but rather maintained that God is His Essence can be depicted?

So I am still confused but can summon enough evidence up to conclude that depicting God the Father and the Trinity as the Ancient of Days or in any other vision of the prophets is valid because these ikons depict the energetic condescension of the Father or the Trinity and not His or the Trinity's Essence. It is not a portrayal of His Essence or the Trinity's Essence.

But because of the invasion of the Latins and their heresy concerning the Trinitarian Essence which was defeated in 1285, 1341 and 1351 by our two saint Gregorys, these ikons were in short supply until the Latins came. They did not exist in the East prior to 843 but neither did the Councils of 879 1285, 1341 and 1351.

Your evidence of the 4th century sculpture or statues of the Trinity in a Rome burial chamber does prove that the Trinity was depicted in Rome in stone.But I have seen no evidence that such statues existed in the basilicas of the West prior to or during the ikonoclastic period (717-843). Do you have any evidence of that?

I have been to Romania and Serbia and have never seen an ancient frescoed ikon of the Trinity or God the Father but that does not mean that they do not exist or existed at one time.

As far as sculptures or statues in Church, the Church has always allowed bas relief in wood and stone in church. Mt. Athos is famous for intricately carved wood crosses in bas relief that sometimes take 40 years to finish. The figures are tiny and exact. 3D sculptures have never been found in Orthodox Churches. Bas relief monumental stone sculptures of the saints are in Ireland prior to the schism and still exist. There are villages in Russia (in the North but I cannot remember exactly where) who carve statues of Christ but they are not put in church.

Currently we have two monumental statues of St. Vladimir the Great in Moscow and Kiev. In Kiev the MP has erected two statues of St. Antony and Theodosius at the Caves Monastery (Pechersky) but they are bas relief but very boldly presented in bas relief.

And of course 2nd Rome featured St. Constantine the Great in 3d atop his column for over a thousand years. Was the statue venerated like an ikon? I do not think so. But the statue was remembered with love by the citizens. These statues grace (or graced) public places. I assume that there were other 3d statues of the saints in Constantinople but none in Church. They expressed the culture and theology of the cities they founded on Orthodox theology.