www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall An Interesting RC Church in Galveston

Dear Bob,

Forgive me as well! I understand the point you are making, but I believe you have taken your arguments a bit too far.

Apart from the issue of the quality of the work and the like, the fact remains that iconography has its several schools, a number of which reflect on the traditions of Particular Churches, including the Western Church, the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian and other Churches. There are also, as you well know, iconographic schools within the Byzantine tradition itself, including the "heart-rending" East Slavic tradition, the more "stern, intellectual" Greek tradition and the like.

In addition, the icons of individuals who have not yet been glorified (or who may never be glorified) is well within the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

One contemporary example is that of the icons of the Russian soldier martyred by the Chechens, Eugene Rodionov. The ROC won't glorify him, but allow for his private veneration. The same is true about the priest Daniel Sysoyev. Icons of locally venerated worthies abound in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy - and yes, the "vox populi" is the "vox Dei" in their cases. There are dozens of locally venerated and uncanonized servants of God, many with the title of "Saint" or "Blessed" in the West (such as "Blessed Peter Lombard" and "Blessed Fra Girolamo Savonarola" in the Dominican Order and in Florence).

There is a "synergy," as you know, between the spontaneous veneration of the people of God for the Lord's servants and the formal process of canonization-glorification. Icons of such, well before their glorification, are allowed - recently, the Serbian Orthodox Church actually approved a formal icon of the holy Patriarch Pavel who has not been glorified a saint.

In the Roman Catholic tradition, of course, there is a "reversal" of this procedure where popular devotion may even impede a formal, contemporary canonization process. (For example, the grave of the future St Josaphat was covered in votives and Rome wouldn't move on his Beatification unless they were all removed. The exception is in a cultus of "time immemorial" which can lead to "equipollent canonization" - as obtained in the case of many English martyrs whose pictures on the walls of the English college were honoured for decades via private veneration.)

In short, we may write an icon of anyone for private veneration. I have known Jesuits and others who kept an image of Gandhi for private veneration and also Martin Luther King.

In my personal correspondence with Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!), I once asked him about the veneration of non-Orthodox worthies in the Orthodox Church. He replied that the private veneration of those who were not Orthodox and of "good people" is not condemned by Orthodoxy. I asked him about the case of the Anglican King Charles the Martyr (whom I venerate and who many among the Anglican Ordinariate AND former Anglicans who became Orthodox venerate privately). Fr. Meyendorff replied that it "seems to me that King Charles belongs to that category (of good people) and he saw nothing wrong with his veneration.

God does indeed glorify His saints, but the Spirit does inspire their pre-glorification veneration through popular, private devotion. Another example is when the ROC recently glorified an Orthodox Saint by extending his local cultus to the entire Russian Church. The only thing the Synod wanted to know was whether the local saint's veneration had spontaneously extended to other eparchies. When that was confirmed, the Synod formally approved/glorified the saint for veneration in the entire ROC.

So the writing of icons of people who are not yet glorified, or who may never be formally glorified for public, liturgical veneration - for private devotion - is quite in keeping with historic Christian practice.

So is the practice of even "adopting" saints from other, even heretical, groups, including, yes, the Arians - as Father Holweck discusses in his Forward to his Dictionary of Saints. In some cases, the biography and even the names of some of these saints are altered to "cover up" their backgrounds and the like (such as the "St Lupus" of Novae in Moesia - today's Swishtow in Bulgaria - who was none other than the Apostle to the Goths and Bible-translator Ulfilas).

So the artist under discussion here has every right to produce the kind of art he does. We, on the other hand, have every right not to purchase it, if we don't like it. It doesn't do anything for me although he certainly does have a following for whom it does. Western Christians who are not used to iconography of any kind might even be inspired by his work to investigate real iconography and develop much further in their outlook on iconography - or not.

Again, we may or may not be inspired by Coptic and Ethiopian iconography. A friend for whom I once purchased a Greek icon of Christ told me he appreciated it, but didn't like it to the point he could not pray before it as it was too "stern-looking."

And so on, and so forth . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

I get your point however, an "icon" of a naked old bearded man titled "Merlin", as in the magical wizard of folklore? From a professed Catholic religious, supposedly of Byzantine learning? Along with the obvious promotion of unsubstantiated tales of homosexual behavior among known saints? Is there no line that shouldn't be crossed?

Dear Michael,

Yes, I remember that icon of Merlin . . .

Not my cup of tea, and other than the tales about Sir Lancelot, I don't know much about Merlin or the other matter you mention.

I think there should be a line that shouldn't be crossed, but then again so much that occurs in the Catholic Church nowadays crosses any number of lines without higher censure that we shouldn't be surprised.

Ultimately, I don't buy icons from him or Monastery Icons or others.

Alex

Lentz has been the subject of controversy over his near if not over the edge "icons." He has been accused of homoeroticism especially in his icon of Sergius and Bacchus. I won't post a link since it can easily be found on St. Google the Magnificent. He has a unique style and it is more western art, I think, than representative of any genuine eastern iconography.

Dear Charles,

Personally, I'm not against Western artists imitating Eastern styles.

In many instances, that could be better than the kind of religious statuary being produced.

The subjects this artist chooses are certainly controversial (unless you are partial to Merlin in which case please accept my apology . . . ).

We have a UGCC church here in Toronto which has a very unique (or even "ugly") iconographic style. It's all Eastern, to be sure.

But I wouldn't be caught . . . in that church if I could avoid it . . .

Alex