www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Icons & Iconography The Beauty of Icons: the slow lane

On the original thread entitled "The hardships of history and the beauty of icons" there is a conversation in progress that I do not care to intrude upon because I want to comment, but in another direction. I am a novice to Eastern Christianity and so my observations are bound to be a bit more sophomoric (and indeed they are). So I'm inclined to begin a new thread, if I may be permitted, that originates in the same place but walks in a different direction.

It is the bolded quotation that prompts me:

"Icons are empirical (proof) that history is not all there is. Icons are evidence that the disappointments of time and space will not overcome the beauty and piece of Jesus Christ. Icons are shining beacons from the Last Day, the Kingdom of God, shining into the here and now.

Every Orthodox icon broadcasts this message that salvation is theosis. "

Coming from the Latin/Western tradition, my perspective on sacred art is that it is indeed sacred, but finally, it's just art. I have always been somewhat surprised, therefore, by the much stronger emphasis that the Orthodox have placed on their iconography, seeming to regard it as somehow living and prophetic...as something much more than merely symbolic or decorative.

The quote above, for example, cites icons as "proof" that history is not all there is. And I have, of course, heard or read the assertion that icons are somehow windows into eternity. I suspect my fellow Catholics of the Eastern Churches conceive of icons the same way, although I don't perceive it as strongly as I do amongst the Orthodox. Eastern Catholics, I observe, focus on the liturgy when they are in church on Sunday, staying put in their seats and singing the responses. The Orthodox, according to my observations, perambulate much more, going from icon to icon during the liturgy in order to venerate them.

So my questions are:

1. Do the Orthodox really look upon sacred art as if it were alive, upon icons as if they really were windows, as if they all but had their own souls? Or is it just all simply a matter of pious hyperbole?

2. Do Eastern Catholics share the same perspective as the Orthodox whn it comes to sacred art...and, incidentally, why are Eastern Catholic worshippers more inclined to stay still during the liturgy while the Orthodox are more inclined to be in almost constant motion?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and explanations concerning how Eastern Christians interpret their art. I've always loved Eastern Christian art, on the one hand. I find it sublime and beautiful. On the other hand, the idea of kissing images, I must confess, makes me uneasy. On the rare occasion that we are called upon to kiss objects in the Roman Catholic liturgy (such as the crucifix on Good Friday) it makes me uncomfortable, and I never really touch my lips to the item to be venerated. I would appreciate learning the thoughts of Christians who are able to venerate images with gusto and abandon.

I think the demeanor of people in church is mainly conditioned by one's cultural background and ethnicity. The veneration of sacred images is woven into the liturgical fabric of the east more so than the west I'd say, and is more demonstrative in the east. The theological foundation in the west is just as strong however. As an example of early (13th c.) western thought, St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae [newadvent.org] Latria is the worship accord God alone. Note who Aquinas quotes.

Also, from a current source: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [scborromeo.org]

In the east, icons and liturgy go hand-in-hand. As a deacon, leading the litanies, I'd feel lost without them. It is, I believe, the convention that the tiers of icons (of saints on church walls) are kept above the level of the wainscot: we, the faithful at worship, constituting ourselves as Church in the Divine Liturgy, are the last tier, the living icons of the present times, united with those of the final times, the eschata. The west might just say, ah yes, the communion of saints.

Also, in the west, consider the carvings on the facade of the medieval cathedral -- I recall those on the north porch of Chartres -- icons stepping forth from the stone

Kissing icons (and other appropriate sacred items) is awesome!

I was raised Latin. When I first came to the UGCC (ten years in November), kissing icons made me a little nervous, because it was a very public expression of affection. It's pretty intimate, but at the same time out there for everyone to see. But that's one of the reasons that it's so good.

Kissing women used to make me a little nervous, too, but I also got over that at a young age. ;-) In like manner, the more you kiss icons (or women), the more you can do it "with gusto and abandon."

Certainly when I kiss the foot of Christ on an icon, I consider that it is super-essentially the same as kissing Christ's actual foot. I usually avoid the faces of icons, because I don't feel worthy. Feet and hands are good enough for me.

Anything that is part of the official liturgical prayer of the church gains a certain "canonical" or "prophetical" or at least "authoritative" status. For example, although he is not mentioned by name, Raphael is widely considered the angel who stirred the healing pool in the New Testament account, because his name was formerly given in the Latin Divine Office of the day (I think), and was part of the official liturgy of the church for a long time. It points again to the liturgy being the focal point for theology. Therefore, if an icon type is widely venerated for a long time, honed and refined not only by theologians and artists but by the prayers of the faithful and the work of the Spirit, its "language" acquires something authoritative.

I probably didn't do that justice. Someone more brilliant than myself probably can.

As regards perambulation (great word, BTW), most of the EC liturgies I've attended are sung by the entire congregation. Few have choirs. The Orthodox liturgies of which I am aware typically have choirs, and most other attendees do not sing - therefore they are free to roam. This could be unrelated. If it is related, several different conclusions could be drawn. I don't know.

According to Steve Runciman in his book, Byzantine Art & Civilisation,
This heresy had to be fought and defeated in the Eastern Churches because of Jewish influence. Runciman used John of Damascus’ writing to help readers understand what the heresy was and how it affected the Eastern Churches. John of Damascus wrote the following in defense of sacred images:

This information is important to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches because it defines how, what and why these heretics are destroying these sacred images. It also explains why icons and images of Jesus and the saints are important for all Christians past and present.

This is a portion of an ethnography or study of a "subculture". The "subculture" observed are the Byzantine monks at Holy Resurrection Monastery who came from California to Wisconsin.

If anyone would like to read the entire ethnography, please e-mail me at rpauly@my.sl.edu or bob.pauly260@gmail.com.

You're right,Booth. Kissing icons is truely awesome. As a typical middle class protestant kid I was told that kissing something that others had touched/kissed was nasty. Drinking the Precious Blood from a commoncup was something I had to get used to. while I attended a Baptist seminary in San Diego I happened to visit The Timkin Gallery, which specialized in Icons salvaged/ransomed from the Soviet Union. I remembered one hallway seeing an old man who walked from one icon to another, 'davening' before each one. Years later,I see what a counter-cultural thing he was doing. With joy I now kiss icons and crosses.
If you get the chance, schedule a visit to the Timkin Gallery in Balboa Park, and venerate the holy icons there. Haven't been there in 30 years, so I don't know whether they'll let you kiss icons there, but know that holy lips have touched these holy icons for decades, even centuries. Be Bold!! Kiss a Saint!!

Many years,
Glenn

AJK,

Thank you so much for this explanation. I found it very helpful, especially the quote from a current source. The comparison of East and West was also very good.

Are Eastern icons mostly one dimensional? The ones I have seen seem to be. I am trying to learn more so if you have any other sources let me know. I am new to the website and the Forum.

God bless,

David

Dear David,

Yes the majority of Orthodox icons are two dimensional. This however is not a rule, there are many exceptions. Low relief to medium relief (not more than 3 sides of a person or object carved) do exist in the iconographic tradition. This is a very deep subject which I am actively studying as both an iconographer and sculptor. Even more rare are full 3 dimensional carvings of Christ and the saints in the Orthodox tradition.

If people are interested, I will post examples of these carvings.

In Christ,

Richard

Richard,

Thanks, this is very helpful, and yes I would like to see examples of the carvings. Do you know why most of the icons from the East are not 3 dimensional? If so let me know.

God bless,

David