www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Militant Latins or Orthodox

X. B!
C, I, X!

�I'm also intrigued by the fact that these three Churches seem to share the same signs and wonders: Marian apparitions, miraculous icons and images, incorrupt bodies, deep mystical prayer, etc. etc.� (quote asianpilgrim)

As God sees it� Like John 17:11? I like that� idea.

Just maybe the old ways were to be the way. Like during the mission of Ss, Cyril & Methodius one bishop per city (not town) who shepherds all God�s children; Eastern, Western and all in-between. Next there could be communal �worship sights� or monastery for all. That way we don�t have to worry about custom purity only cross contamination.

NORTH MINSTER: SATURDAY 5 VESPERS (Eastern English/Greek) 7 MASS (Western English/Ukrainian). Sunday 7:30 MATINS (Eastern English/Spanish), 8:30 MASS (Western English/Latin) 10:30 MASS/Divine Liturgy (Eastern English/Slavonic) 12-3 CATECHISM, 3 VESPERS (Western English/Italian) 4 NOVINA/AKATHIST (to be announced). COFFEE CLUTCH following all Sunday services. WEEKDAYS 8:30 MASS (Western English/priests discretion) EVENINGS Pre-sanctified Monday 6 PM here (Eastern English, Tues at South, Wed at Central, Thurs at East, Friday at West) Meager MEAL to follow.

SOUTH MINISTER� so on and so forth�

Haven�t figured out how the basket donations would be divided. At least it gets rid of that �orthodox� custom that is not followed in Europe; one Liturgy no matter what the commitments of the faithful are.

If new buildings do neo-Romanesque, whitewash walls and project changeable hologram iconography. Use light movable seating not corrals. Why does everyone need their own little clubs houses? Let all learn to live together like at the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.

X. B!
C, I, X!

�� icon veneration had been developed in tandem to the Hellenic traditions�� quote A Simple Sinner

How about tandem with Slavic customs; Madonna of Czestochowaj aka Theotokos of Beltz or the alabaster statuary of St. Hyacinth Madonna of Kieff aka Kyiv?

I have read, and believe it, that when Constantine moved the capital of the Empire, many of those who serviced the Emperor and his household, including the artisans (many of whom were probably ethnic Greeks), lawyers, et al., pretty quickly followed him to Constantinople.

That may be why an incipient art of iconography began at Rome, but didn't continue to the same extent, at least, as it did in the East. Rome still venerates ancient iconic pictures of Our Lord and Our Lady (some attributed to St. Luke) that were known to exist already in the time of, I think, Pope St. Leo the Great.

On a personal note, I am (though RC) not a big fan of "realistic" statuary. In fact, I find iconography far more "appealing". On the other hand, I do like statues of Our Lady with a long history, such as the ones you might find in 1000-year old shrines and churches sprinkled around Spain, France and Italy. I've never been elsewhere in Europe, so I mean no disrespect toward Ireland, England, Germany et al.

And some of the reredos I have seen, either personally or in pictures, I like very much -- but they tend to have the saints "ordered", in symmetric niches, etc., and that I find to be conducive to restful meditation and contemplation, as do the iconostases of the East.

The Veneration of the Holy Images are enjoined in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Icons should be just as much a part of the Roman Rite as the Byzantine Rite. They are not only relevant to the Byzantine Church.

I would tend to exclude Henry the VIII from this statement and instead insert the names of his two children Edward VI and Elizabeth I. Despite his personal immorality and his schism from Rome, he (for the most part) still upheld the Catholic faith and even sent people to the stake for Protestantism after the schism!

The West does venerate Holy Images, just not typically in the form of Icons. There's no reason that Icons alone should be viewed as specifically enjoined by the Seventh Council.

Peace and God bless!

I wouldn't say got lost, just took a different turn.

[Linked Image]


I read the whole article, but I'm afraid I didn't grasp the point of it. I realize that the article was directed against Western Rite Orthodoxy, however, it just seemed to be a rant against the "heterdox" "Western Rite" and "Western devotions", albeit without a coherent argument.

They could be. I don't see the Latins as being deficient for not having the same models of icon veneration as the Christians of Greco-Slavonic patrimony. Ditto for the Assyrians.

Some things that are not present outside of Byzantium can't be said to be lost. That is mostly the point I am trying to get at.

The West has its own venerable tradition of sacred art and architecture. At the same time, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger points out in his book Spirit of the Liturgy:

"The Church in the West does not need to disown the specific path she has followed since about the thirteenth century. But she must achieve a real reception of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, which affirmed the fundamental importance and theological status of the image in the Church. The Western Church does not need to subject herself to all individual norms concerning images that were developed at the councils and synods of the East, coming to some kind of conclusion in 1551 at the Council of Moscow, the Council of the Hundred Councils. Nevertheless, she should regard the fundamental lines of this theology of the image in the Church as normative for her...."

In short, the West does not need to disown her own traditions, but she also has a lot to learn from the East when it comes to the theology of the image. Here, Cardinal Ratzinger clearly affirms that the East is the teacher of the West when it comes to the theology of iconography, and that the West has yet to fully receive the teaching of Nicaea II. The section of "Spirit of the Liturgy" from which this citation comes - "The Question of Images" -- shows how deeply Cardinal Ratzinger is indebted to the writings of P. Evdokimov.

Again, the Pope's writing's don't indicate a need to go to iconograpy, but to renew the veneration of images. This would be, in Western tradition, the return to the reference that was once given to statues and even to architecture; icons as used and understood in the Byzantine tradition were never a part of Western devotion outside of a few minor examples, but statues and such certainly were until relatively recently.

Peace and God bless!

Just an observation...

I read Cardinal Ratzinger, and now Benedict XVI, to be saying not so much "you teach me about X, I'll teach you about Y", but rather we all need to be attentive to what the Lord is trying to teach us "today" (whenever that is) about every aspect of our Christian lives.

For a Roman Catholic (I'm one) that could easily include going deeper into the spiritual iconographic tradition of the Byzantines; and/but it could also include learning to recognize spurious western artistic models as they crop up as well.

That's exactly how I read it. The personal cultus of the icon never fully developed in the West, rather it was the communal cultus of the statue (and early on these statues often contained relics). Thus unlike in the East where icons are seen as mirrors of, or gateways to, Christ and the saints in heaven (at least according to my understanding), the statues and relics are seen as tangible representations of Christ and the saints here on earth. To put it another way: Eastern Christians like to be transported to heaven; Western Christians like to bring heaven to us. Either way, a "foretaste of heaven" is experienced.

That is precisely my understanding of the Western approach as well, and why I personally retain a taste for it. It is much easier for me to view Heaven, the Saints, and Divinity itself penetrating the world and changing it, making it new. I don't like the feel of "escape" from this world, but rather I enjoy the sense of renewal and growth in this one, a change from the inside out.

Ironically this leads me to prefer, and live, the Byzantine spiritual approach for the most part, but I retain a preference for the "Western style" of art precisely because of how it actually draws out the concept of theosis in the here and now. The two traditions are quite complimentary in this regard, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

An icon is not simply a "window" into heaven, it is instead a theophany, a manifestation of God and of the saint or event depicted in it, and so an icon and its heavenly prototype are one living reality. In other words, an icon is not simply a token of something that is absent, but is the very manifestation of the presence of its heavenly prototype, and that is why when a man venerates an icon he receives divine graces.

Nobody is questioning this. We're simply discussing subjective preferences when it comes to the use of statues.

Peace and God bless!