The Mother of God calls us to be 'Bearers of God'

Catholic Online ^ | 11/30/2008 | Deacon Keith A Fournier

[fproy2222]

Sorry. I am persuaded by many Biblical scholars and by many Bible commentaries, written by greek scholars, that the CATHOLIC interpertation of Matthew 16:18 is mis-guided and wrong. Have a Happy New Year.

+++++

I am not Catholic, but I must ask:

Why do you choose to believe these scholars and commentaries, and not those who used the same information to came up with a different conclusion?

[annalex]

what the definition of the word "canon" means as regards iconography

This is an excellent question. I don't know. It seems that iconographical canons are simply traditional guidelines that are not taken legalistically. They do not originate from councils. Here is, for example, how Cavarnos describes the Annunciation:

On the left side of the composition stands the archangel Gabriel, having the right arm stretched out, blessing the All-holy Virgin Mary, who is at the opposite side, and holding in his left hand a staff, a symbol of his authority as a messenger of God … Gabriel wears a tunic and an outer garment. He is shown as if he were running, having one of his legs forward, with the knee protruding under his garments. His facial expression is solemn, manly, but modest. Sometimes one of his wings is raised, the other lowered.

The Virgin is shown standing before a throne or seated on it. She wears long inner and outer garments that leave exposed only her face. The front part fo the neck, and the hands. Her facial expression and posture evince modesty, prudence, and humility. Her head is inclined in the direction of the Angel. With her right hand she makes a gesture of acquiescence, while in her left hand she sometimes holds a spindle or a handkerchief. Her gaze as well as her bearing and gesture convey the .. statement from the Gospel of St. Luke: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be unto me according to thy word”.

In the background there are building whose elegant form enhances the beauty of the composition. Above them, at or near the middle of the top of the icon, is a representation of the heavenly vault in the form of a semicircle, from which there radiates a beam of light. The light symbolizes the grace of the All-holy Spirit. It terminates at or near the halo of the Virgin. Sometimes, certain other features ar added, if space permits—for instance a table near the Theotokos, on which is placed the Old Testament and a vase with flowers. The latter serve as a symbol of her virginity.

Here is a good icon written to that canon (the ray of light apparently was golden and nearly completely wore out):

If you google images for "annunciation icon" you will find -- even ignoring coptic or western ones -- variations in terms of artistic interpretation, as well as another type where both are standing and there is no throne:

Sometime I see the Holy Ghost (a dove) superimposed on the ray of energy; sometime, Jesus is shown in a mandorla at the top center, rather than an empty "heavenly vault". In the second image from Ustyug Jesus is shown twice, once as a baby in the womb and second time blessing from heaven.

The question becomes, is Ustyug one (both standing) non-canonical? It is certainly of ancient origin as there are coptic composition like that.

People who know icons have a feel for what is strange and out of the loop, and what is canonical: wrong color or style of Our Lady's garment, wrong facial type, wrong posture. However, they do not treat these as lawyers, rather they would say "I've never seen it done like that".

[annalex]

1Cor. 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Ah, that's different. Idolatry indeed is abominable to a Christian. The original discussion was about making images. This is not only not forbidden, but encouraged:

we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor. 3:18)

before [your] eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you (Gal. 3:1)

she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father

This is showing Mary pointing to God and venerated for that reason; the distinction between veneration and worship is very clear here, as well as the reason to venerate saints.

[annalex]

The Greeks would indeed object to the Catholic understanding of papacy that is sometimes seen in that verse, but no one, East or West would see the Church as it is described in Matthew 16 and 18 as anything other than hierarchical body that is lead by bishops succeeding the Holy Apostles and is doctrinally united. This is precisely what "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH", cited in 81 explains.

Happy New Year and God bless.

[Kolokotronis]

“People who know icons have a feel for what is strange and out of the loop, and what is canonical: wrong color or style of Our Lady’s garment, wrong facial type, wrong posture. However, they do not treat these as lawyers, rather they would say “I’ve never seen it done like that”.”

Alex is correct. There are no canons as we usually use the term, to do with the writing of icons. But there are traditions which have near the force of dogmatic canons. And we do know when something isn’t right. The responses however can be such as “That’s not really an icon” to “That’s heretical” There are a number of “icons” of the Holy Trinity that purport to show the Father as an old man with a white beard, usually with a triangle over his head. Generally they are held to be heretical. Here in America there is a Roman Catholic monk, a franciscan I think, who profanes icons and iconography by creating modernized pictures of such figures as Caesar Chavez and Gandhi. Probably he’s just one of your numerous monastic Post Vatican II heretics whom your bishops allow to run riot, but no good will come of such “iconography”. Here’s a link to a site which sells this garbage:

http://www.trinitystores.com/?detail=70&artist=1

[Kolokotronis]

Meant to ping you to #105

[GonzoII]

“People who know icons have a feel for what is strange and out of the loop, and what is canonical"

Thanks for the ping.

I think I got it now, the "canon" that is. If I was an Icon writer, and I decided I was going to write an Icon of the Annunciation, like the beautiful one on post #102, there would be a "set" way that I would need to do it. Certain elements would have to be in it, like body posture and a spindle or a handkerchief etc. and these elements would be able to be found in all authentic Icons of the Annunciation down through history, correct?

Pardon me if I don't reply to your response right away, it's late here, I'll get to it in the morning. ...Thanks again.

[annalex]

Yes, that is a necessary warning. There is much interest in Byzantine icongraphy in the West, and often someone would adopt the outward techniques, such as tempera on gesso, a certain style of gestures and garments and produce something that has a superficial resemblance to icons. So long as they are called what they are, religious art, inspirational art, or simply “art”, this is fine, but one should not confuse that with iconography. In Br. Robert Lentz's defense, I notice that he does not call his work "icons" and they clearly are not.

On the other hand, much in the early renaissance European art has a spiritual rather than purely aesthetic connection to Byzantine iconography, and the connection holds even when the technique is distinctly Western.

Here is a curious example of such interpenetration

Annunciation Triptych

Robert Campin

1425

This is a charming, masterfully done composition. I don't need to point out the many ways in which this is not an icon nor is intended to be: the artist's interest is in place the scene in contemporary to him setting and allow the viewer to link his own life as a tradesman to the blessed event. But Campin does not try to force any innovation: the central composition is quite canonical, and the intention is to encourage pious meditation, much like an icon would do.

Let us have a mental experiment. Replace the naturalistic oil-on-wood technique with tempera on gesso. Would that make it an icon? Still not: the image is still overloaded with unnecessary from the iconographic standpoint detail. Let us remove the distractions: the cityscape seen through st. Joseph's window, all the pots and tools and furniture. Let us retain the outline of the house, the central table with the vase, and give Joseph just one tool, which is in his hands. This begins to resemble an icon of the Annunciation with side scenes.

Let us pursue our goal, to make an icon out of this further. The donors on the left are a distraction altogether, no matter how you paint them. Perhaps, if we want to stick with the multipart composition, an image of Zacharia and expectant Elizabeth would be more apporpriate. A few things are still out of proportion to our spiritual eye. Why is the table so large? It is a naturalistic detail: people's kitchens have large tables. But its only purpose here is to contain the lily and the book -- which in themselves are important elements symbolically. So let us reduce the table to a little one-legged stand. This gives us room to make the main character figures larger relative to the less important Joseph and others. What we dioscovered is the principle of psychological perspective: things are shown large or small depending on their importance rather than actual size.

But where is the miracle? We see a young man (with inobtrusive wings) pleading with the maiden, who appears to ignore him while reading the book. We are still not showing what is the most important, the life of the spirit. Our painting remains grounded in the physical world. Now we see the reason for the nimbi and the heavenly vault: they explain what the physical objects cannot. So let us add them. Now we have very nearly a canonical icon (the redheadedness of Our Lady and her concentration on the reading remains a problem, though: an icon is supposed to retain the historically known to us facial features of major saints, and at the very least, their Jewish ethnicity).

This is what is ironic here: after all the compositional changes the tempera on gesso technique, -- the first step we took -- is really the least important. What is important it to see things not like the physical eye sees it but how the informed mind sees it. We removed the distractions and magnified the spiritual. But, of course, we have gone completely against the artist's original intent of placing the scene in a pedestrian contemporary setting.

[Kolokotronis]

There is something else one needs to know about writing icons and that is that it is done only with the proper spiritual preparation and then with prayer and fasting. It is in the Eastern Church almost sacramental, like for example making the Prophoron for the Divine Liturgy only more so. Not everyone is spiritually capable of writing icons. Its a great spiritual gift.

[annalex]

In fact, there is an opinion, — extreme and inaccurate, to be sure, but it exists among some Russian iconogrpahers, that writing icons is in itself a Holy Mystery.

[big'ol_freeper]

My most treasured.

[Kolokotronis]

“In fact, there is an opinion, — extreme and inaccurate, to be sure, but it exists among some Russian iconogrpahers, that writing icons is in itself a Holy Mystery.”

I’m not so sure that it isn’t. As you know, Orthodoxy does not dogmatically limit the Mysteria to seven. I am not saying that it is a Holy Mystery (I don’t know), but I am saying that at a minimum it is a practice which is far beyond the mundane.

[Kolokotronis]

Our Lady of Perpetual Help is very famous. The largest icon we have in our icon corner is this one. The original is from 12-13th century Crete. It was stolen by an Italian merchant in the 1400s and taken to Rome and eventually put in a church there.

When you say your prayers tonight, say them in front of this icon and kiss Panagia and Christ while crossing yourself before and after your prayers. If you have a votive candle, light in front of the icon before you pray. It will be a blessing for you.

[big'ol_freeper]

Thanks you. I will do so.