www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What about these Icons?

Scroll down about halfway and click on the links: Warning some are terrible or even blasphemous.

What are the proper subjects for Icons?

http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/

These are not canonical Eastern Orthodox icons.

Please consult the following two iconographer's manuals:
An Icon Painters Notebook: The Bolshakoy Edition. An Anthology of
Source Materials. Trans. and Ed. Gregory Melnick. Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications: 1999.

The �Painter�s Manual� of Dionysius of Fourna. London: Sagittaurius Press, 1978.

The best available book on the theology of canonical Orthodox iconography is:
Leonid Ouspensky, & Vladimir Lossky. The Meaning of Icons. Rev. Ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir�s Seminary Press, 1982.

There are specific canons dealing with iconographers. The iconographer is traditionally blessed by the bishop after an examination of character and faith.

Iconographers follow tradition and do not "invent" icons according to their personal taste. Unfortunately, today there are many icons available in what is called "iconographic style" which are not canonical icons. Many of the artists who produce such icons have had no theological training, do not have a theological understanding of the symbolism of icons and produce their works according to their whims.

I thought that a bunch of them were disturbing if not blasphemous: Princess Di? Matthew Shepard?

OH DEAR

I'm also confused by the fact that some of his 'subjects ' who to my knowledge have not been glorified are pictured with Halos [ see the illustration of Gerard Manley Hopkins ]

Not my taste at all

Was the Jesuit Fr. Thomas Anchanikal (AT Thomas) a Syrian Catholic (i.e., Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankara)?

Thanks.


Alex

Dear Friends,

These images aren't my favourite and there are indeed some among them that are highly questionable.

But there are others, especially Latin themes, that could speak to others, if not to us.

I like the icon of Nestor Savchuk that he has.

Fr Nestor was a Ukrainian Orthodox priest in Odessa, a former martial arts champion who converted and became a priest.

Icons were being stolen from his parish church and one day, during the winter, he tracked the foot-prints in the snow of three thieves until he caught up with them.

They attacked him, but he easily overcame them and took them into police custody single-handedly!

Yes, I understand he did that "chop-chop!

The police asked him if he wanted to press charges for icon-theft. Fr. Savchuk asked the thieves if they would do it again, and they said, "Of course we would . . ."

He then pressed charges . . .

It would seem that the thieves' friends wanted to make an example of Fr. Savchuk, and on January 9th, 1993, the third day of the Feast of the Nativity, Fr. Savchuk was found dead, his throat "ritually" slit and it was assumed he was murdered by cultists or else his murder was made to look like a ritual slaying.

He is venerated widely in Ukraine and Russia.

Good for that priest to have done an image of him!

Alex

Hmm. There is something not right about those icons. Something very strange about their eyes, they are almost too big, and have that white spot that cartoonists use to show light in the eyes. Something shallow about them that doesn't draw me in like most icons do.

Some of them are ok but once I saw the icons of Sophia and Jesus-Heysichia which scare me, and are heretical not to mention one of an Islamic Holy Person, I was disturbed.

I only looked at a few of them...and of course Princess Diana intrigued me, but I did find one, or rather a tryptich that was extraordinarily beautiful. It was Jesus extreme humility, and in the tryptich was Our Lady of Sorrows.

Gross.

Alot of the stuff is just tasteless and disgusting. It's a shame that he calls them "icons."

-uc

Any art - religious or secular - is subjective. Anyone can call their religious works "icons" ... in fact, anyone can call themselves an "artist". A God-given talent is self evident in their works - what one does with God's gift is another matter.

Many of today's iconographers believe they have a "calling" to create icons when they lack the basic abilities of even a mediocre artist. They follow the "rules" of iconography, but their works are shallow and cannot touch the souls of the viewer. Some have made it a vehicle for monetary sustenance.

What I have always found remarkable is the indefineable attributes of an icon that are created through the Holy Spirit (i.e. the icon of Christ chosen by Dr Eric)... and how we can instinctively recognise it in our hearts.

What is truly sad is how this priest is leading souls astray with his art. He acknowledges that he is not doing Orthodox icons, yet his work also is not in keeping with his RC faith either. He needs our prayers.

Well, I don't see these as Icons but portraits and I don't see what is disgusting about them. I would not venerate them as icons but they are important subjects. Nothing disgusting or blasphemous

The fact that much of McNichols work is blasphemous, is no surprise since the man openly rejects the historic teachings of Apostolic Christianity. His 'St Francis Neath The Bitter Tree" is horrific beyond belief. That he has not been defrocked is a sad indictment of the Diocese of Albuquerque.

Horrific beyond belief?
Yes.
Like this - the chanting of which I have yet to make it through.

Well regardless of whether it's an "icon" or simply a "portrait", I see nothing "horrific" about it. The image, as noted on the page, is based on a painting by Bartolome Esteban Murillo. (I couldn't find a picture of the original, but you can find a reproduction (a bit garish, in my taste) at http://www.catholictradition.org/Passion/assisi9-8.jpg .)

As for the sign about Jesus's head, it says "AIDS / LEPER / DRUG USER / HOMOSEXUAL". The point is that these are all categories of people who are considered outcasts, but whom Jesus calls us to love. After all, Jesus himself was considered an outcast by His society. Let's go through those four categories:

• AIDS -- People are often afraid of people with AIDS. And people aften associated AIDS with homosexuality. Yet there is no intrinsic connection. The greatest number new AIDS cases is found among heterosexual women. And even if there were an intrinsic connection with homosexuality, would this matter? No. We're called to love homosexuals too.
• LEPER -- This is quite similar to AIDS, in the people are very afraid of lepers. Jesus calls us to love, care for, and minister to those people who are lepers or like lepers in our society.
• DRUG USER -- Yes, we condemn drug abuse as a sin, but remember the good ol' saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."? We are called by Jesus to love drug users and to help free them from the bonds of addiction and the fetters of sin.
• HOMOSEXUAL -- No, this is not some sort of glorification of homosexuality. This painting points out that homosexuals are spurned by our society. Jesus calls us to accept them. Note well that the Catholic Church considers being homosexual, not a sin, but a disorder. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are considered sinful. And not all homosexuals commit homosexual acts. The painting calls us to accept homosexual people (regardless of whether they do or do not commit homosexual acts); the painting does not call us to accept homosexual acts.

I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear.


Peace,
Alex NvV

Really, though, I was more interested in whether Fr. Anchanikal was an Eastern Catholic, and if so, to which sui juris Church he belonged...

Alex