On John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and the ROCOR

This forum is for polite discussions among the various True Orthodox Christians. Only confirmed members of TOC jurisdictions are permitted. However, TOC inquirers and catechumen may be admitted at the administrator's discretion. Private discussions should take place in DM's or via email. Formerly "Intra-TOC Private Discussions."


User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 6:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

On John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and the ROCOR

Post by Cyprian »

St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai:
Sunday 16. Talents and Iconography.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books ... movich.htm

(excerpt)

An icon ought to depict not only the outward but also the inner life, holiness and closeness to heaven. This is depicted primarily in the face and its expression, and the rest of the icon should conform to this. Our Orthodox iconographers directed all their attention to conveying the state of the soul, concealed beneath the flesh. The more successful this attempt was, the better the icon was. The execution of other parts of the body was frequently inadequate, not because this was done consciously by the iconographers but because the attainment of their principal goal did not always allow them to pay sufficient attention to secondary aspects. One might add that even in taking ordinary photographs, especially candid ones, many would undoubtedly show unnatural positions of the body, which ordinarily we would not notice. One cannot paint an icon by depicting the external aspect alone; this external representation must reflect the unseen struggles and must radiate with heavenly glory. This can be achieved most successfully by the person who himself leads a spiritual life, and who understands and deeply reveres the lives of the saints. Our ancient iconographers, in engaging in this art, always prepared for it with prayer and fasting. To many icons executed in this manner the Lord granted wonderworking power. Of course, every icon, after it is sanctified, should be revered and must not be treated with disdain or disrespect. We should therefore refrain from passing judgment on icons which have already found a place in churches, but we must always strive towards what is better, and, what is most important, our attention should be directed not so much towards the aesthetic appeal of icons as to their spirituality. Icons that do not satisfy the requirements of Orthodox iconography ought not be placed in churches or in homes. Icons cannot be painted by simply anyone who has a talent for art and who is capable of their artistic execution. Often the state of the person painting an icon and a desire to serve God are of greater significance than artistic skill. In Russia, after the reign of Peter the Great, along with the good which arrived from the West, many novelties foreign to the spirit of Orthodoxy entered into Russia. A significant portion of Russia's educated class fell under this influence, which injected much that was unhealthy and bad into their literary and artistic works. This tendency was also reflected in iconography. Instead of emulating the ancient Russian iconographers, they began to emulate artists of the West, who were unfamiliar with Orthodoxy. The new images, although they were very beautiful, did not correspond to the spirit of iconography. This spirit, foreign to Orthodoxy, began to take root in Russia and gradually unsettled her. The words of the prophet are addressed to us today: Give not of thy glory to another, and what is beneficial to thee to an alien people. Just as in life, so, too, in church traditions we must return to those firm and pure foundations on which Russia was built and secured herself. One reflection of these foundations is our iconography. Icons for our churches must not be painted in a spirit foreign to Orthodoxy. Some think this means icons must be painted in dark colors, with unnatural positioning of the bodies. This is not true. Ancient icons were painted with bright colors and darkened over time with the accumulation of dust. At the same time, it must be remembered that many saints were in fact dark-complexioned, having spent their lives in hot deserts, and many had bodies that were indeed emaciated with long years of ascetic struggle. Theirs was not an earthly but a heavenly beauty. Through their prayers may they help our churches become reflections of heavenly glory and help our flock to unite in seeking the Kingdom of God and to preach — not only through the church but also through life — the truth of Orthodoxy.

Last edited by Maria on Sun 8 March 2015 2:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: This post has been copied into Intra-TOC Polemics from Theology and Tradition.
User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Which one of these is a valid icon and why?

Post by Barbara »

Nice idea for a thoughtful explanation by St John Maximovitch, Cyprian.
However ! The translator goofed. Surely St John of Shanghai and San Francisco did NOT say "Peter the Great" - !
Must have been Peter 1, but he [or she] imposed his or her own understanding, in which Peter I was considered to be
so 'great' because he ruined Russia, but opened the door more widely than his father, Alexey Mikhailovich, to the West.
Even to the point of seemingly worshipping Europe and European ways. Naturally, all Western scholars dote on the unruly monarch who overturned the fabric of Russian cultural life. As I have long maintained, my own idea, not read anywhere, this almost insidious destabilization of the Russian identity allowed - eventually - the Bolsheviks to take over with much less resistance than had the Russian culture been maintained solidly intact.

Archimandrit Nilos
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue 25 April 2006 8:34 am

Re: Which one of these is a valid icon and why?

Post by Archimandrit Nilos »

I cannot agree with the conclusions of Ioan Maximovich; he was going on the footsteps G. Flovorsky. Flovorosky was a member of the fallen "World Orthodoxy."

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: On John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and the ROCOR

Post by Maria »

Cyprian's post has been copied and the two posts directly below his questioning Archbishop John have been moved here into Intra-TOC Polemics.

Since not all True Orthodox jurisdictions consider Archbishop John Maximovitch to be a saint, who was glorified by the ROCOR, this topic remains divisive.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: On John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and the ROCOR

Post by Maria »

My parish of Holy Trinity in Phoenix, Arizona is allowed to have a private devotion to St. John of San Francisco, but our jurisdiction of the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos of Athens does not recognize him on our church calendar.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: On John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and the ROCOR

Post by Barbara »

Oh ! That is news, Maria !
I thought the whole world did [except fellow Rocor hierarch Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles !].

Good that you made that clear.

Has Fr Steven explained WHY the GOC-Stephanos does not recognize him as a Saint ?
If not, could you please ask him for any details ? Thanks if so.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Father Seraphim Rose of Platina: Will he ever be glorified?

Post by Maria »

Barbara wrote:

Oh ! That is news, Maria !
I thought the whole world did [except fellow Rocor hierarch Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles !].

Good that you made that clear.

Has Fr Steven explained WHY the GOC-Stephanos does not recognize him as a Saint ?
If not, could you please ask him for any details ? Thanks if so.

Fr. Stephen told me that it would not be right for the GOC in Athens to be concerned with other jurisdiction's saints. That is none of our business. However, it would be all right to venerate St. John of San Francisco privately, so the oil from his tomb in San Francisco is kept at our church in Arizona.

For example, HOCNA did glorify Met. Philaret of New York, but they were no longer in the ROCOR, so it was highly irregular for them to glorify him. If I am not mistaken, they were the only jurisdiction to glorify Met. Philaret of New York.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Post Reply