www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Icons & Iconography Monastery Icons

If I learned that my "priest believe[d] that the Eucharist is merely the symbol of our inherent divinity," it would bother me a great deal, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent me from receiving the Eucharist from him. It is not his personal faith that consecrates the Eucharist, but the action of the Holy Spirit through him.

In like manner, I would not avoid "Monastery Icons" because they are produced by heretics. I would, however, suggest two completely different reasons for avoiding these things: 1)purchasing them may profit an organization that would thereby deceive more souls and 2) they are hideous.

On another matter, if a church or an individual had a number of these things that have been blessed, what would be the proper manner of disposing of them, should they wish to do so?

While your reasons for avoiding MIs are valid, it is also true that if the priest does not intend what the Church intends it can nullify the sacrament (I speak a now Byzantine Catholic who was trained in the Western theological tradition; I don't know what the Eastern view is).

If blessed, and sanctified by the devotion of the people, there would be no reason to dispose of them. But if they (understandably, upon learning more about the makers) wanted to the proper means of disposal would be burning.

The priest need not necessarily "intend what the Church intends"; he must, however, intend to do what the Church does.

In the case of the Hindus painting "icons", the question seriously arises of whether the painters intend to do what the Christians do, or intend to deceive the Christians. Considering both Hinduism itself and several aspects of the "icons", I fear the intent is to deceive the Christians.

Fr. Serge

Yes, thank you Father Serge for your more precise- and correct- wording.

Fr. Serge, Bless.

A follow up question:

Since our Eastern Liturgies are our primary means of educating (feeding, teaching, preaching, healing) the faithful, is anything connected with that also an off-limits area for non-Christians to produce items?

I know of a construction guy who was hired by several churches in the US because he came from an area of South India that was majority Christian - he's worked with Christians before, he knows our "setup" and he's even built the sanctuaries of various parishes - but he's a practicing Hindu.

I know from first-hand experience that in India Hindus are hired, under the supervision of Christians, to produce liturgical fans, vestments, altar cloths, metal crosses, statues, and to print the Lectionary and even the Books of the Liturgy.

I'm not sure that this is a problem, since all these items will be blessed and "baptized" if you will...

(This discussion goes beyond 'Monastery Icons', which is something I personally avoid, mainly since they are nefariously vague and untruthful about themselves)

The Blessing of the Lord!

Well, consider the example of non-Christians working in a publishing house which produces books for specifically Christian use. One would expect that either the Bishop or his delegate carefully reviews the proofs of such books before allowing the final printing - and if anything inappropriate has been slipped in, there are things which can be done about it.

The issue with "Monastery Icons" is largely that of truthfulness, along with a well-founded suspicion that they are trying to lead Christians to worship strange gods.

Fr. Serge

Yes, and while it would be preferable that the Christian community build everything designed for divine worship, there is, I think, a distinction between making a building for worship, say, or printing books, or whatever, and painting an icon. All other things are mere matter until consecrated for worship, but an icon is sanctified by the prototype; it is -or should be- holy in every stage of its creation. So it can only be painted by a believer, and a lover, of Christ.

Hi Dave,

Yes, I was aware of this. Years ago I had correspondence with HTM and they were always forthright and truthful with any inquiries I made. The signature,("From the hand of"), of the iconographer can be found in Greek along with the date on the festal icons.

Bill

Iconophile,

Your post above pretty much sums up what I meant by "plagiarism". From their earliest beginnings as Holy Protection Monastery in Nebraska there has always been a giant ? to go along with Monastery Icons and their beliefs and affiliations.

It's been a few years now but even Light and Life Publishing's catalog came replete with Monastery Icons. They had, and still have, lots of people duped.

Bill

No, what I said has nothing to do with plagiarism. Iconographers commonly use prototypes, or if they "create" their own use predetermined characteristics. Many iconographers use the exact same prototype and no one complains who understands the principles correctly.
As an aside, you can have a whole class using the same pattern and colors, and no two icons will look the same. While one does not seek individual expression, each icon will reflect the person in his or her level of talent, their prayerfulness and their personality.

Iconophile,

I understand what you are saying here and I realize my use of the word "plagiarism" doesn't fit. I conveyed that in my original post. You are interpreting what I am trying to say technically. So, to make things as simple as I can, I think "Abbot" George Burke used the familiar, the icons of HTM, to make a buck.

His brand of "Orthodoxy" never jibed with real Christian "Orthodoxy", Byzantine or Oriental. He could have used any icons, but in the beginning HTM's were familiar to him. So he used them.

I also don't believe Abbot George was or is the iconographer. There were photos of a "Brother Simeon" in their catalogs who was shown painting icons. Brother Simeon's intent may have not been the same as George Burke's but I do remember seeing a picture of Brother Simeon dressed in a sari, along with the rest of the "monastery", worshipping in front of a Hindu statue somehere on the internet.

God Bless,
Bill

Bill,

If this Simeon fellow were in a sari, that would make this all the more strange, as saris are women's clothing..

"If this Simeon fellow were in a sari, that would make this all the more strange, as saris are women's clothing.."

Yes, of course. He was wearing whatever it is called a Hindu man might wear that resembles the garment in this picture:

http://4dalove.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/lastdaysashram118.jpg

Though that picture is not of Simeon.

I think this thread has about run its course. If there is nothing new to add to this discussion, I'll close it. I think the general understanding is that this is not a source of Christian art or liturgical items.

BOB
Moderator

You are right that a true iconographer is not plagiarizing when he writes an icon according to the rubrics established by the Church's iconographical tradition, because the production of a true icon is an ecclesial act; but a non-Christian who is merely copying an icon in order to make money, or in order to deceptively promote idolatry, is in a sense plagiarizing, because his work is not an ecclesial act.