www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Icons & Iconography The hardship of history and the beauty of icons

My dear friend, Very Rev. Jonathan Tobias, pastor of St John the Baptist Orthodox Church (ACROD), E. Pittsburgh, PA presented this homily at the Orthodox Clergy Brotherhood of Greater Pittsburgh Doxology Service for the Sunday of Orthodoxy last Sunday. It should be required reading for all Eastern Christians.

http://janotec.typepad.com/terrace/2013/03/the-hardship-of-history-and-the-beauty-of-icons.html

"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. "

Father Jonathan is Professor of Homiletics and Church History at the Orthodox Seminary of Christ the Saviour (ACROD) in Johnstown, PA and Adjunct Professor of Homiletics and Moral Theology at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh.

Thank you for introducing me to a truly excellent blog.

Everyone ought to read "Why we Fast"!

Father Jonathan has an interesting background. A convert, initially via marriage, he comes from a family deeply rooted in the southern Baptist tradition and in preaching. He served as a Deacon at his Orthodox home parish in Ohio for many years while working as a clinical psychologist prior to the priesthood. Warm, funny and dedicated, he is an exemplar of what it means to be a priest in our mutual Eastern Christian (and any Christian tradition for that matter).

Articulate and beautiful. Thanks for sharing it.

I do not question this testimonial to Fr. Jonathan and its accuracy but, on the basis of what he wrote, I at the least question his view of history and interpretation and expression thereof – his sense of proportion and discernment. He begins with a quote from the Wikipedia web site’s Feast of Orthodoxy [en.wikipedia.org]. As he examines the changing positions on icons over the course of time he soon arrives at the conclusion:

Now it’s one thing to gloss over a lot of history and details – under the circumstances, I understand – and highlight one’s own point of view. To recast history, selectively and with bias and innuendo is another matter – especially being a teacher, it’s just so unnecessary and so unworthy. Thus he continues, emphasis added by me:


Quite a lot of colorful adjectives -- and such breath: "and the eastern Churches" -- but I find it hard to understand that an academic and teacher at a Catholic seminary would want to write in this fashion. His characters sound more like those fashioned in the rhetorical excesses of some epic myth: good guys with white hats, bad guys with the black, everything so simple and black-and-white and easy to get right. Such a fabrication of history, however, just serves to put up roadblocks and blow up bridges between East and West. It boarders on a polemic that all too often ingrains itself in the faithful and whom, having been so taught, then go on to defend the indefensible and with zeal and assurance.

He continues:
A half truth is sometimes worse than complete and total mendacity. To the extent that it really was a schism, it was for the most part an East-West breach, Rome being more than just an isolated church. And what of the position of the Maronite church which claims acceptance of Chalcedon and therefore continued communion with the Church of Rome.

And he continues: What it would be nice to point out, since it is both true and ecumenical, is that the triumph of orthodoxy was truly a triumph of the undivided church, and not just a triumph for the East ( link [mb-soft.com] ). Why should that be so hard to convey?

In contrast to Fr. Jonathan’s account, a balanced treatment of what happened, also from Wikipedia, Photian schism [en.wikipedia.org], and eventually ending in rapprochement:


Also, of some note the article concludes:


referencing A history of the Byzantine state and society by Warren T. Treadgold [books.google.com] p 453,: “In Moravia Constantine-Cyril and Methodius sided with the papacy against the patriarch Photius.”

The story continues, that East and West are reconciled. Unfortunately there are those who would not have that be the conclusion.

Perhaps Father Jonathan, in giving this talk and posting it, is simply unaware of the way this part of it would come across, or is simply uninformed. If, having been informed otherwise as I have just done for instance, he were to maintain this position, I would question at the least that he is teaching at St. Cyril Methodius Byzantine Catholic seminary. And I am aware of and support academic freedom; it is not, however, academic license.

Why am I making so much of what is so little of an otherwise fine homily? Exactly because it is so little it looms as such an unnecessary distortion.

Methinks the good deacon protesteth too much. There is a vast difference between a homiletic summary and an academic paper. Anyway,the Melkite Eparchy of Newtown posted a sentiment similar in theme to that of Father earlier this year...

In part, "Since the Church saw icons as connected with its faith in the Incarnation, it came to see icons as an expression of the Orthodox faith. Thus the definitive restoration of icons in Constantinople on the first Sunday of the Great Fast in the year 842 was called the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” "

https://melkite.org/faith/sunday-scriptures/why-are-icons-orthodox

Pardon me, but shouldn't that be I thinks???

I took into account the homily vs. academic paper aspect and allude to it at the start but again, that such a lapse was in a homily -- is he setting an example for his students ? -- where one would hope for the most irenic treatment, is all the more egregious.

As for the feast and the Melkites etc. I am in complete concurrence; but that doesn't nullify Rome's role in the resolution of the dogma and orthodoxy's triumph, it only affirms it -- or should. Also, what makes this stand out is Father's position as a faculty member, Adjunct Professor of Homiletics and Moral Theology, at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of SS. Cyril and Methodius. If anything, I protest too little.

It seems to me that your problem is not with the homily so much as it is with the presence of a non-Catholic, Orthodox professor on the Seminary's faculty. Would you have preferred a more Papal-supremacy friendly slant to his synopsis? Would you really expect a similar "balanced" approach to the Nicholas/Photian dispute within a Roman homily?

Many Orthodox (myself included) certainly acknowledge the role Rome played in the defense and preservation of Orthodoxy during first millennial periods of heresy and political intrigue in the East - as would Father in his Church History class (one he does not teach in Pittsburgh.) However no Orthodox church historian would treat Pope Nicholas and his view of papal supremacy and universality in a favorable light or view his role in the Photian affair as having a positive impact on the history of the Church.

After the restoration of icons in the east all was not "hugs and kisses" regarding the Patriarchate and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Emperors, icons and the Church - contrary to what most contemporary Orthodox laity probably believe. Rather, in that moment of triumph lay the beginning of the end of Church unity. Making that point was clear in the homily and essential to its message.

I have read and reread the homily and the Melkite article in light of your objections, and frankly, I do not find your criticisms to be valid.

I would be interested in the perspective of others.

Also, how is St. Photius viewed by the Eastern Catholic churches as he was certainly glorified by the East centuries before the Unia and many BCC parishes honor the Sunday of Orthodoxy, including the Synodikon on the first Sunday of the Great Fast.?

He's in the Typicon on 6 February. And though I never heard it in all my years as a Ruthenian, in our Melkite parish, the Anathemas of the Synodikon are read dutifully during Orthros on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. I think it one of our cooler services. As my wife says, it's a good break from having to say nice things about everybody all the time.

Read what I wrote: My issues are with the portion of the homily I indicated; in writing my critique of it I became increasingly aware of what could be a conflict of interest.

Yes, I would hold a Catholic homilist to the same standards though I really don't think such a situation would arise. Catholics for the most part have moved on. Of course Catholics "honor the Sunday of Orthodoxy" and of course we Byzantine Catholics celebrate it on the 1st Sunday of the Great Fast, same as our Orthodox brethren. Your -- Orthodoxy's ? -- problem may be in thinking that the triumph of orthodoxy is the triumph of Orthodoxy or worse a triumph of the East over the West. The designation orthodox was in the missal of Pius V there, as it is in the same ancient Roman Canon (anaphora) of the missal of Paul VI that prays "et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus."

Is Pope Saint Nicholas I (the Great) also venerated by the Orthodox?

Do you really believe that? Our catechism teaches us that the Triumph of Orthodoxy is the triumph of the True Believers over the Iconoclasts - not a triumph of east over west. I should hope that a professor of Church History at a Catholic university would teach that to be the case. I will concede that there are poorly educated Orthodox who may hold a twisted position like you describe just as there are poorly educated Catholics who go around telling their Orthodox neighbors that salvation is not possible outside of the Church of Rome and without pledging fealty to the Pope.

Modern Orthodox and modern Catholics use those terms - orthodox and Catholic - in a different sense than believers did in the ninth century. However in the Christian East we both proclaim the right teaching of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith as proclaimed by 2nd Nicea and the triumph of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday.

No, Pope Nicholas 1 is not an Orthodox saint. I believe the last Orthodox Saint who was Pope was St.Zacharias,+751, who opposed iconoclasm, adorned churches with frescos, and did much for missionary work and peace all over western Europe. His feast day is March 15th. One of the peculiarities resulting from the Unia is the veneration of post schism Eastern Saints who clearly are not in the Canon of western Saints proclaimed by Rome in part because of their opposition to the expansive role of the primus as espoused by Pope Nicholas 1. The examples of St Gregory Palamas and St. Photius come to.mind.

If you believe there is a "conflict of interest" don't argue with me, take it up with your Metropolitan. I suspect he would not see it as you would apparently like him to see it.

This had never occurred to me until I read your words. I am very pleased to read it is not the case.

But they shouldn't.

Exactly, the Christian East...and (Catholic at least) West (except for the eastern feast).

In one of those wiki articles I read words about Pope St. Nicholas I that covered these same points, characterized him in similar terms. I think he may be an unfortunate victim of polemics; the Orthodox sometimes hold too selective, unnecessary and enduring grudges.

I wasn't arguing this point with anyone, just making an observation.


Interesting suggestion. Perhaps this should be discussed on the forum in a new thread (except for the part about what you imply I would like him to see).

I see we agree on more than we disagree which is a good thing.

You are correct in that the average Orthodox believer is conditioned by polemics to either be ignorant or dismissive of both the pre and post schism Orthodoxy of Rome and the important role western thinkers and popes played in protecting Christianity against the Muslim onslaught while the east came under Islam's sword and rule between 700 and 1453. But I would argue the same of the average Catholic believer being equally ignorant or dismissive of the pre and post Schism catholicism of the East based on the west's use of its own polemics.

While our recent Patriarchs and Pope and their theologians may understand this nowadays, we all have a long road to travel to reach an enduring common ground.

S'bohom.

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 I wrote concerning the monks at Holy Resurrection Monastery who came from California to Wisconsin and how they pray the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours.

If anyone wishes to read the entire ethnography, please e-mail me at bob.pauly260@gmail.com or rpauly@my.sl.edu. I will e-mail it to you.

Welcome to the forum. I would caution that to some Orthodox,Runciman is "persona non grata." Of course those folks would critique negatively any historian who deviates from the mythic chronology of Byzantium. But, you can't understand history or use it to support your point of view without critical analysis as "truth" in history is illusive. "Balance" is even more so.