www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Icon of the Trinity

Dear Alex,

When you wrote:

"...it is how the Church of Christ interprets it today that matters ultimately..."

did you mean to imply that this invalidates earlier interpretations made by same said Church?

In Christ.

PS: You forgot to ask me in which room I keep St. Andrew Rublev's trinitarian icon.

Dear Andrew,

O.K. - which room DO you keep it in?

Does the Church's teaching today invalidate previous interpretations?

Only if the Church says it does.

Or else we should simply follow the Church in her liturgical life without applying our critical reason too much.

There are plenty of other subjects, including sociology, where we can give our rational powers a solid workout!

Alex

The Holy Council of the Hundred Chapters held in Moscow in 1551 prohibited the icon known as the 'New Testament Trinity'.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

And welcome back!

What exactly did the Nikonians do to the canons of the Stoglav Sobor later on?

Clearly, they annulled the canons on the Sign of the Cross.

From the Nikonian POV, did the other Canons remain in force for the Nikonian Church?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us. Amen.

Dearest brother-in-Christ, Alex,

May the All-Merciful Lord bless you.

The Eastern patriarchs, the same ones that tried and defrocked Nikon, declared the sacred council nul, void and heretical. Thus the spirituality and ways of piety of St Sergei, Sts Vladimir and Olga and the choir of Rus' saints was 'erroneous' and the God-pleasing sovereigns of Holy Russia were in error. Tsar Alexei Michailovich betrayed and spat upon the memory, piety and faith of his own fathers as did Nikon, of sorrowful memory.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father in Christ!

Is there an online rendering of the Canons of the Stoglav Sobor in English?

The Nikonian Patriarch of Moscow has made overtures to the Old Believers recently.

From an Old Believer point of view, what would be necessary to restore communion?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

p.s. the Lestovka will be worked on following the Nativity "Kanikuly!"

Alex

Hardliners would insist that there must be a full return to Old Orthodoxy. Since the Belayakrinitsi are taking a hard line at the moment it makes any advance nigh on impossible.

Traditionally, the faithful folowing His Holiness Patriarch Aristarkh of Novozybkov, Moscow and All Russia have been more rigid still.

The warmest relations are between the priestless Old Believers and the Nikonian Church. However, I don't know what conditions they would name!

I think that at the end of the day there may be many parishes who would, like the yedinovertsy/united faith parishes of the New Rite patriarchate and ROCOR, look far more moderately at the whole question.

Some of the united faith parishes have united Old Believers of different backgrounds.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Ah, so simple really (and I'm being simplistic).

Since God the Father has never been seen, it is incorrect to depict Him iconographically, especially as an old man of unequal age with the Son, who existed with the Father from all eternity. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," Jesus said. With the coming of the Logos in the flesh at the Nativity, the Godhead may now be depicted, but only the Son (as Himself and the express image of the Father). Of course, at Theophany we have the Holy Spirit appearinng in the form of a dove.

In much Byzantine iconography, the Father is simply represented by a hand within a cloud from Heaven. The icon of the Holy Trinity by St. Andrew Rublev is a magnificent way to depict the Trinity and counter all objections: all three Persons are equal!

No, no, no!!!

We read that the Holy Spirit desended LIKE a dove, NOT in the form of a dove.

The depiction of the Holy Spirit as dove is INCORRECT!!!

In Christ -
Mark,monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Happy New Year!

I just wanted to review the canonical icons of the Holy Trinity:

Hospitality of Abraham
Theophany
Descent of the Holy Spirit
Transfiguration

These are the ONLY canonical icons of the Most Holy Trinity that the Orthodox Church recognizes, am I correct?

And, apart from the Person of Christ, there is no other way to depict the other Two Persons of the Holy Trinity - am I correct?

Not depicting the Spirit as a dove makes sense in the spirit of the canon (of which Ecumenical Council I remember not) that forbade the depiction of Christ as a lamb, i.e. the prohibition of depicting God as an animal.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Father Mark, are you a hieromonk or a simple monk?
If you are a hieromonk, Father, bless.

I like the symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit at the Theophany. Yes, yes, yes!

Troparion of the feast:

"When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan,
The worship of the Trinity was made manifest!
For the voice of the Father bare witness to Thee, and called Thee His beloved Son! And the Spirit, *** in the form of a dove***, confirmed the truthfulness of His word. O Christ our God, who hast revealed Thyself and hast enlightened the world, glory to Thee!"

OrthodoxEast

Dear Orthodox East, I am a hieodeacon.

In monastic culture, bless, is the standard greeting, regardless of holy orders. We see this in the story of St Mary of Egypt. The elder St Zosimma resists Mary's constant demands for him to bless and he demanded the blessing of her.

Equally, if I meet an abbess of eldress I ask her blessing - at least in the Russian tradition.

The dove is lovely as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but we are not told that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. If - IN THE GOSPEL - we read 'os peristeran' or 'san peristeri' in modern Greek IN CONTEXT, we must surely make an allegorical conclusion. The Holy Spirit is formless. It CANNOT be a dove, but it's gentle descent may be like a dove. There is a great beauty in this.

With love in Christ,
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father Mark,

I was taught to take blessings and ask for same only from bishops, priests (whether hieromonks--including abbots-- or not), and abbesses. I was not taught to ask the blessing of a deacon, whether monastic or not. I have *NEVER* seen the bishop's archdeacon, who is resident in my parish, being asked for or bestowing a blessing.

I believe that in the Russian tradition priests wear a pectoral cross to distinguish them from deacons et al. so that one would not make the mistake of asking the blessing of a deacon, as a tsar or tsaritsa once did. But, in truth, anyone may bless or ask for a blessing, e.g., parents for children, children from parents.

Yet, in Orthodoxy, we do address all monks (except novices, whom we address as "Brother"), whether priests or not, as "Father." And we address all nuns (except novices, who are addressed as "Sister") as "Mother." And we address deacons, whether hierodeacons, protodeacons, archdeacons or simply "deacons," as "Father Deacon" or simply "Father."

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Ah, but Fr. Mark is of the Old Orthodox Rite, you should remember.

Crosses are also worn by Monks, especially Stavrophores or the second Grade of Monasticism in Orthodoxy.

East Slavic Orthodox clergy wear one-bar Orthodox Crosses to indicate rank, but all ranks in Old Rite Orthodox wear the three Bar Cross.

Orthodox Monks of old could not only bless, they could hear confessions - even though the absolution had to be received from an ordained priest.

Alex

Dear Father Mark,

Just an after-thought. In icons of the Elder St. Zosimas with St. Mary of Egypt in which the Elder communes St. Mary of the Eucharist, St. Zosimas is often depicted wearing an epitrachelion (priestly stole). Whether this is a correct depiction of him or not I do not know, but at least some iconographers must have thought that he was in Holy Orders and a hieromonk. To be carrying Communion to someone as he did and to administer the Cup, he did have to be a priest (or at the very least, a deacon), did he not? Or have the ancient rules changed.

OrthodoxEast