Jesus vs. Mary and the Saints

[cathqat]

You are misrepresenting my position, though. I do not think we are disagreeing about what he thinks we are disagreeing about. I am disagreeing that we disagree about that

[Apotheoun]

The following letter was issued by the Presiding Hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in Denver:

[quote]July 15, 2002
Protocol 02-15

The Pious Pastors, and The Esteemed Parish Council Members of the Holy Diocese of Denver

Beloved in the Lord,

As I review the many pieces of correspondence that are received at the Diocese Office I have become concerned about the increasing use of icons on stationery.

It seems that more and more parishes, church organizations, and individuals are using icons -- often very nice ones and even in full color -- to adorn their business and personal stationery.

This should be a matter of concern for us as pastors and as leaders in the Church for several reasons.

First and foremost, icons are not "art" or "adornment" that should be used to embellish personal items or logos. I am certain our faithful who use icons on their stationery do not mean any disrespect, and indeed most likely believe that they are doing something good.

However, the vast majority of all letters are eventually thrown in the trash. It saddens me to think of the countless pieces of stationery with such beautiful color icons on them that now lie in the garbage dumps of our cities, surrounded by, and covered in, the waste and refuse of our society.

As Orthodox Christians we respect and venerate the sacred images, recognizing that the honor shown to these reflects upon the saints, the Mother of God, and our Lord who are depicted. Although people who place icons on their stationery and business cards probably mean to honor these holy ones, I do not believe that these are the most appropriate means for doing so.

Accordingly, I ask that you no longer use icons on your parish letterhead, and instruct your faithful concerning this matter so that holy images in full color will not be inadvertently torn or trashed. You may, however, use line graphics limitedly, suggesting a particular holy icon, but not an image that is a holy icon.

With Paternal Blessings,

+ Metropolitan Isaiah
Presiding Hierarch of the Diocese of Denver[/quote]

[Benedict]

I wonder if that sentiment applies to computer images and the Recycle Bin.

[cathqat]

I agree that it degrades the holy icons to put them on mere stationery letterhead!

But if this is meant to prove to me that icons are neither beautiful nor adornment, it's not working

In the liturgies surrounding Orthodox Sunday, the faithful sing:

[quote]The uncircumscribed Word of the Father became circumscribed, taking flesh from thee, O Theotokos, and He has restored the sullied image to its ancient glory, [i]filling it with the divine beauty[/i]. This our salvation we confess in deed and word, and [i]we depict it in the holy icons[/i].[/quote]

[quote]The Church of Christ is now [i]embellished[/i] like a bride, having been [i]adorned with icons[/i] of holy form; and it calls all together spiritually; let us come and celebrate together joyfully with concord and faith, magnifying the Lord.[/quote]

Dr. Constantine Cavarnos says, "The idea that icons are [i]a means of enhancing the beauty of churches[/i] appears in many writings of the Fathers. Niketas Stethatos, the most famous disciple of St. Symeon the New Theologian, says that upon becoming abbot of the Monastery of St. Mamas, Symeon '[i]adorned[/i] its church with beautiful marbles on the pavement, with holy icons, and other wonderful offerings.' It may be added, that the very fact that the Orthodox in general speak of the 'decoration' ([i]diakosmesis[/i]) of churches with icons shows plainly that they recognize this function."

Is he suggesting that the holy icons are merely beautiful art? No! But they are at least that, and so much more.

Likewise, Blessed Photios Kontoglou wrote:
[quote]In a religion like this, one that makes the believer into a new man," everything is "new." So, too, [i]the art[/i] that gradually took form out of the spirit of this religion, and which it invented to express its Mystery, is [i]a "new" art[/i], one not like any other, just as the religion of Christ is not like any other, in spite of what some may say who have eyes only for certain meaningless externals.

The architecture of this religion, its music, its painting, its sacred poetry, insofar as they make use of material media, nourish the souls of the faithful with spirit. The works produced in these media are like steps that lead them from earth up to heaven, from this earthly and temporary state to that which is heavenly and eternal. This takes place so far as is possible with human nature.

For this reason, [i]the arts of the Church are anagogical, that is, they elevate natural phenomena and submit them to "the beautiful transformation."[/i] They are also called "liturgical" arts, because through them man tastes the essence of the liturgy by which God is worshipped and through which man becomes like unto the Heavenly Hosts and perceives immortal life.[/quote]

Calling the holy icons "art" is not a reduction. We both agree that, in the words of Blessed Photios, an icon "is not merely an aesthetic object to be enjoyed for whatever artistic merits it possesses." Icons are much, much more than beautiful art, and worthy of our veneration. But they are certainly not less than beautiful art, and it is pointless to create a false dichotomy between the holy and beautiful, as if something or someone could not possibly be both.

In [i]For the Life of the World[/i], Fr. Alexander Schmemann defended "useless beauty":
[quote]Unnecessary it is indeed, for we are beyond the categories of the 'necessary.' Beauty is never 'necessary,' 'functional,' or 'useful.' And when, expecting someone whom we love, we put a beautiful tablecloth on the table and decorate it with candles and flowers, we do all this not out of necessity, but out of love. And the church is love, expectation, and joy. It is heaven on earth, according to our Orthodox tradition; it is the joy of recovered childhood, that free, unconditioned, and disinterested joy that alone is capable of transforming the world. In our adult, serious piety we ask for definitions and justifications, and they are rooted in fear -- fear of corruption, deviation, 'pagan influences,' and whatnot. But 'he that feareth is not made perfect in love' (1 John 4:18). [i]As long as Christians will love the Kingdom of God, and not only discuss it, they will 'represent' it and signify it in art and beauty[/i].[/quote]

"Christianity is [i]beautiful[/i]," wrote Schmemann, in his journals. "But precisely because it is wonderful, perfect, full, true, [i]its acceptance is before anything else the acceptance of its beauty[/i], i.e., its fullness, divine perfection..."

"How [i]beautiful[/i] is this world!" wrote Fr. Thomas Hopko, in memory of Alexander Schmemann. "How glorious it is! It is the epiphany and the sacrament of God Himself. It [i]radiates divine beauty[/i]. It radiates with the uncreated Light of the Godhead. It shines with the presence and the power of God Almighty Himself. Those who have eyes can see it; those who have ears can hear it singing, and we know that all is filled with the goodness, the power, the presence of God."

If the aesthetic beauty of the holy icons was something to be denied, St. Vladimir's Seminary would certainly not be publishing [i]The Aesthetic Face of Being: Art in the Theology of Pavel Florensky[/i]!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 5 2005, 09:33 PM'] If the aesthetic beauty of the holy icons was something to be denied, St. Vladimir's Seminary would certainly not be publishing [i]The Aesthetic Face of Being: Art in the Theology of Pavel Florensky[/i]!

[/quote]
What St. Vladimir's seminary does is its own concern. I refrain from calling icons "art" because it degrades them to a profane level in American society.

I refer to an icon, as just that, an icon; for it is not a piece of art, rather, it is a window into heaven.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 5 2005, 11:45 PM'] I refrain from calling icons "art" because it degrades them to a profane level in American society.

I refer to an icon, as just that, an icon; for it is not a piece of art, rather, it is a window into heaven. [/quote]
Icons are art [i]and[/i] windows into heaven. There's nothing "profane" about them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 6 2005, 12:22 PM'] Icons are art [i]and[/i] windows into heaven. There's nothing "profane" about them. [/quote]
That is your opinion and you are welcome to hold that position, but I don't agree.

[journeyman]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:22 PM']
Again, false dichotomy. They [i]are[/i] art, products of human skill as well as humble prayer and the blessing of God. And they are aesthetically pleasing. But they are much, [i]much[/i] more than that.



On this point we completely agree.



From what I can tell, this disagreement comes down to your misunderstanding of what the word "art" means and setting up a false dichotomy.

And I am not saying the Eastern and Western understandings of icons are the same. Never have, never will. I believe the West is ignorant about the true nature of icons. [/quote]
You two are so far over my head it isn't funny . . . but if I am following you at about this point in the thread (and I haven't gone to the end to see where this went) . . . would the same disagreement be present if one said "The Bible ______ literature."

is or is not ?

[cathqat]

*LOL* I would say that Bible [i]is[/i] literature, no question about it. Great literature. It is much, much more than that, but certainly not less.