Icons Representing God The Father

[Resurrexi]

N.b., the word "icon" here is meant any representation of the Persons of the Trinity, image of Jesus Christ, image of the Blessed Virgin, representation of the angels, or image of the Saints that is for Christian veneration.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Resurrexi

[StColette]

I don't know enough to say yes or no. If I remember correctly, it has been some time, there's an image (icon) that depicts the Holy Trinity and there's a book open in front of God the Father. I could be wrong about this but I thought I remembered something on this order. I'll have to search and see if I can find it online. Isn't the Ancient of Days a reference to the Book of Daniel?

This is the one I've seen

[img]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/solekat205/the%20crescat/divine.jpg[/img]

Edited to fix my mistake from not reading carefully Cut me some slack, I'm growing a baby.

[Resurrexi]

Colette, if you see my original post, it says that by "icon" I mean any Catholic holy image.

[StColette]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1872011' date='May 20 2009, 05:22 PM']Colette, if you see my original post, it says that by "icon" I mean any Catholic holy image. [/quote]

swy

[Brother Vinny]

I'm not certain if you're asking about images of God the Father in particular, or if God the Father should be portrayed at all, but I voted no.

There's a spectacular stained glass window at the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Pawhuska, Oklahoma, that portrays God the Father (with a triangular halo) casting Adam and Even out of the garden, with the Douay-Rheims version of Genesis 3:15 lettered below.

I realized that this may have been the first time I'd seen God the Father portrayed at all in our iconography. To this day, I don't see it done too often.

This had also been the first time I'd seen the DRV of Genesis 3:15 (I didn't even know about the version, then!); imagine what a shock [i]that[/i] was!

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

An Icon is an image (usually two dimensional) of Christ, the Saints, Angels, important Biblical events, parables, or events in the history of the Church.

Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.

The Ancient of Days Icon is the Son of God and not the Father.
Revelation 7:13-14 "I beheld one coming with the clouds as the Son of man, and he came unto the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him. To him was given the dominion, and the honor, and the kingdom. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away."

The Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and thus the whole Church, flatly deny this, stating: (Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [i]On the Seventh Ecumenical Council[/i])“Christians have never made an icon of the invisible and incomprehensible divinity, but it is only insofar as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us that we paint the mysteries of man’s redemption.”

St. Pope Gregory II of Rome, an early defender of the Church’s iconographic tradition and icon-veneration likewise testifies: [i]Mansi, Acta Concilia, vol. 13[/i]“We do not delineate and paint the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Why these things changed in the West, I do not know but depicting God the Father in image after it was said in Council that it is not, let alone defended by Popes in the past is beyond me.

*references made above are stolen from many sources on the internet. Most are literally copied and I could not word them any better myself.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1889159' date='Jun 12 2009, 03:31 PM']An Icon is an image (usually two dimensional) of Christ, the Saints, Angels, important Biblical events, parables, or events in the history of the Church.

Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.

The Ancient of Days Icon is the Son of God and not the Father.
Revelation 7:13-14 "I beheld one coming with the clouds as the Son of man, and he came unto the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him. To him was given the dominion, and the honor, and the kingdom. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away."[/quote]

In making this poll, I intended the word "icon" to mean any image for Christian veneration; thus, I would say it is not correct to say that most icons are two-dimensional.

According to Catholic teaching, God the Father can be painted as the "Ancient of Days":

"To represent the Persons of the Holy Trinity by certain forms under which they appeared in the Old and New Testaments no one should deem contrary to religion or the law of God. For who can be so ignorant as to believe that such forms are representations of the Deity? These forms, as the pastor should teach, which only express some attribute or action ascribed to God. Thus when from the description of Daniel God is painted as the Ancient of days, seated on a throne, with the books opened before hint, the eternity of God is represented and also the infinite wisdom, by which He sees and judges all the thoughts and actions of men.'" ([i]Roman Catechism[/i] III, 2, 20)

In context, it is clear that the Ancient of Days icon is an icon of God the Father, as the Catechism elsewhere treats of icons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1889164' date='Jun 12 2009, 01:49 PM']In making this poll, I intended the word "icon" to mean any image for Christian veneration; thus, I would say it is not correct to say that most icons are two-dimensional.[/quote]
Eastern Christians use the word "icon" in a very theologically technical sense, because for us icons are a dogmatic issue.

That said, Western religious art produced during the renaissance would not be seen as iconography by an Eastern Christian, nor would we recognize modern art as iconography in the proper sense of the term (e.g., the image recently placed in the chapel of the cathedral in Vienna would not be thought of as an icon by Eastern Christians).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1889164' date='Jun 12 2009, 01:49 PM']In context, it is clear that the Ancient of Days icon is an icon of God the Father, as the Catechism elsewhere treats of icons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Although the Russian tradition has produced some images of God the Father, this type of art is not accepted as normative within the overall tradition. It should also be noted that the "Ancient of Days" is normally understood to be Christ, because His (i.e., Christ's) description in the book of Revelations coincides with that Old Testament figure.

[Apotheoun]

Resurrexi,

If you are interested in understanding icons (and iconography) better, I would recommend getting a copy of the book: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Language-Icons-Solrunn-Nes/dp/1853116572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244840928&sr=8-1"][u]The Mystical Language of Icons[/u][/url], by Solrunn Nes. It is a great book and quite easy to read.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Apo,

Okay, not meaning to argue here, but I'm confused...if the Ancient of Days is meant to be the Son of God, then why is the Son of Man approaching Him? I think most people see the Ancient of Days as the Father being approached to the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

Unless we're to understand that one is the Son as the "Son of God" and the other is the Son as the "Son of Man" image and they are coming together to hint at the Incarnation...

Resurrexi,

I understand the Roman Catechism to be saying that the Ancient of Days is a Scriptural representation of the Father, and so it is okay to make an icon of a Scriptural scene, and that it is also okay to make an icon representing an attribute of the Father rather than the Father Himself (the Ancient of Days therefore being a sort of allegorical figure representing God's eternal life). I don't think that outside of that, it's saying it's okay to make an icon of the Father Himself (in such a way that you could say, "this is an image of the Father"). I think, though, that if you can say of it, "this is an image of a biblical scene in which the Father is represented through Biblical imagery" or "this is an image representing an attribute of the Father," then it would seem to be okay.

That's just off the top of my head...this is not a topic where I have any expertise.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1889219' date='Jun 12 2009, 03:22 PM']Apo,

Okay, not meaning to argue here, but I'm confused...if the Ancient of Days is meant to be the Son of God, then why is the Son of Man approaching Him? I think most people see the Ancient of Days as the Father being approached to the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

Unless we're to understand that one is the Son as the "Son of God" and the other is the Son as the "Son of Man" image and they are coming together to hint at the Incarnation...

Resurrexi,

I understand the Roman Catechism to be saying that the Ancient of Days is a Scriptural representation of the Father, and so it is okay to make an icon of a Scriptural scene, and that it is also okay to make an icon representing an attribute of the Father rather than the Father Himself (the Ancient of Days therefore being a sort of allegorical figure representing God's eternal life). I don't think that outside of that, it's saying it's okay to make an icon of the Father Himself (in such a way that you could say, "this is an image of the Father"). I think, though, that if you can say of it, "this is an image of a biblical scene in which the Father is represented through Biblical imagery" or "this is an image representing an attribute of the Father," then it would seem to be okay.

That's just off the top of my head...this is not a topic where I have any expertise.[/quote]
It is the same as when icons depict the Ancient of Days with a boy sitting upon His lap, both are Christ. The Ancient of Days signifies Christ's eternal divinity and the boy His incarnation. Icons are not modern logical depictions of historic events; instead, they are filled with mystical symbolism.

Finally, all the Old Testament theophanies, according to the pre-Augustinian patristic tradition, are uncreated manifestations of the Logos, and not of the invisible Father. The pre-Nicene Fathers, even more than the post-Nicene Fathers, see Christ as the icon of the Father, and so to see Christ is to see the Father (cf. John 14:9-11), but the Father Himself is never directly depicted.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1889219' date='Jun 12 2009, 05:22 PM']Apo,

Okay, not meaning to argue here, but I'm confused...if the Ancient of Days is meant to be the Son of God, then why is the Son of Man approaching Him? I think most people see the Ancient of Days as the Father being approached to the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

Unless we're to understand that one is the Son as the "Son of God" and the other is the Son as the "Son of Man" image and they are coming together to hint at the Incarnation...

Resurrexi,

I understand the Roman Catechism to be saying that the Ancient of Days is a Scriptural representation of the Father, and so it is okay to make an icon of a Scriptural scene, and that it is also okay to make an icon representing an attribute of the Father rather than the Father Himself (the Ancient of Days therefore being a sort of allegorical figure representing God's eternal life). I don't think that outside of that, it's saying it's okay to make an icon of the Father Himself (in such a way that you could say, "this is an image of the Father"). I think, though, that if you can say of it, "this is an image of a biblical scene in which the Father is represented through Biblical imagery" or "this is an image representing an attribute of the Father," then it would seem to be okay.

That's just off the top of my head...this is not a topic where I have any expertise.[/quote]

I should have said "an icon representing a form under which God the Father appeared."

Edited June 12, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1889220' date='Jun 12 2009, 05:25 PM']It is the same as when icons depict the Ancient of Days with a boy sitting upon His lap, both are Christ. The Ancient of Days signifies Christ's eternal divinity and the boy His incarnation. Icons are not modern logical depictions of historic events; instead, they are filled with mystical symbolism.

Finally, Old Testament theophanies, according to the pre-Augustinian patristic tradition, are always uncreated manifestations of the Logos, and not of the invisible Father.[/quote]
So in the OT, when an angel appears to someone, the angel represents the Son? I mean, don't get me wrong...I get that the Father is always seen through the Son, as He is the image of the Father, but does the Son, through His manifestations, not still represent the Father (and, naturally, Himself and the Holy Spirit)?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1889225' date='Jun 12 2009, 03:33 PM']So in the OT, when an angel appears to someone, the angel represents the Son? I mean, don't get me wrong...I get that the Father is always seen through the Son, as He is the image of the Father, but does the Son, through His manifestations, not still represent the Father (and, naturally, Himself and the Holy Spirit)?[/quote]
Yes, that is the tradition of all the Fathers prior to St. Augustine, and of the majority of the Fathers after his time. St. Augustine complicates matters because he did not accept that the theophanies of the Old Testament were real uncreated manifestations of God to man, but saw them merely as created similitudes of God pointing to His presence, but without truly manifesting it.