www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The spirituality of icons 101

Well, I just "met" him recently and am not impressed with his tone.
I would consider the icons you suggested also to be an abuse. I was taught that icons are not to be made to support a "cause", even a good one. It is a sacred thing, not to be treated lightly or to be appropriated for one's own ends. One should pick up the brush with fear and trembling!
I am really troubled that this appears to be controversial here on this forum; and while painting icons to promote a good agenda is a departure from the tradition, painting icons to promote an evil agenda is an unspeakable evil.

Well, I guess I will just sit back and let you two guys duke it out on your own, since I seem only to be adding fuel to the fire.

And we have *enough* flames out here right now, thank you very much!

Well, Alex can be a bit condescending at times and I have had my strong disagreements with him but he does know SO much of Church history and tradition (he just needs to learn that some others might as well

Yes, I am impressed with his knowledge, if not his conclusions.

I was thinking about our exchange yesterday and was struck by its curious nature. To review: Alex challenged me to cite a heretical icon by Robert Lentz. When I cited several, and one by another iconographer, Fr William Hart McNichols, he switched modes, insisting that I contact the iconographers in question and making snide remarks about my manhood. However, the same day on another thread he himself severely criticized someone on EWTN for his remarks on Eastern Catholicism. So, Alex: did you contact the man or just criticize? Of course you didn't: it is really a silly demand, more a diversionary tactic than anything. I doubt we'd have many discussions on this forum if that were the prerequisite. Indeed if someone publishes his ideas- or his icons- he has entered the public forum. Nor do I need to question the iconographers in question: their work speaks for itself. Mr Lentz obviously has a political and religious agenda and that is why he chooses the subjects that he does. And Fr McNichols is a self-described homosexual with sympathy for the gay movement [I assume in charity that Jesuitical causuistry aside he is faithful to his vows]. Because that movement has canonized Matthew Shepherd, Fr McN has done his "icon " of him. A curious martyr indeed. Matthew did not die for preaching to his murderers but for propositioning them. A tragic tale, to be sure, but one not remotely connected to sanctity. He was the victim of his own lusts and the evil in the hearts of his tormentors.
djs says that he and Harvey Milk- who Lentz has honored with an "icon"- are honored for being despised and unjustly killed. Well then, when is someone going to paint an icon of Fr Geoghan, the pedophile priest who was recently murdered in prison? Talk about despised! And if our hearts cannot help be moved at the thought of a skinny young homosexual being brutalized by local thugs then who can not find some sympathy for a frail old priest being stomped to death by a young neo- Nazi, whatever the priest's crimes?
And it is very likely that Fr Geoghan died repentent and in a state of grace. After all he had been publicly humiliated and had plenty of other things- solitude, suffering- that would likely make him turn to God.
But the icon won't be painted. The liberal iconographers won't paint it because there is no hip, popular movement for pedophilia rights nor are there sympathetic pedophiles portrayed in movies and TV, though I don't doubt that coming decades will bring this.
And orthodox iconographers won't paint it because even if Fr Geoghan did die in a state of grace he did not live a life of grace. Rather his sins did untold damage to his young victims and to the Church. When the Church canonizes someone She is not merely stating that they are in heaven, they are also being held up as models of sanctity. There are precious few deathbed conversions. I did once read of an English Catholic priest, a bad priest who regularly violated his vow of chastity [his name escapes me]. When the English reformers dragged him before their tribunal he refused to denounce the Catholic Faith. "Fornicator have I been",he said,"heretic never!" He was canonized, but note he was not killed by a jealous husband but died for the Faith.
I realize that these iconographers also do traditional icons. No, these icons will not put a hoodoo curse on your house but why support those who paint other aberrational images? Don't give them money, I say, it only encourages them.
And Alex, don't be so reluctant to admit that someone else has a valid point.
And don't jump to conclusions about people. I am, alas, no longer young and my own past and path have been eclectic [which I don't consider a bad word].

quote:

Originally posted by daniel n (to alex):
"Daniel Boom"? "Little friend"? "Be a man?"
I was under the impression that I was conversing with reasonable people who could disagree without being snotty about it. Guess I overestimated you.

Posted by A Theist to daniel n:

Dear Daniel,
Alex is a very nice person, not at all snotty, and he likes to make up nicknames for all of us. He calls me "Dolly". I've never considered it to be insulting. It's just part of the give and take of a chat group.

Theist,

You're right, they aren't snotty. "Snotty" implies the ability to carry off one's remarks with a haughtiness and a tenor suggesting that the speaker believes himself to be on a higher plane. Alex's text is childish; it lacks the sophistication to be snotty.

This isn't grade school. Alex's tone, remarks, and choice of words are rude, disrespectful, condescending, arrogant, and a sad commentary on the maturity (or lack thereof) of the writer. And, speech of this type has never been an acceptable part of the give and take of any adult forum in which I've participated.

Brian, in response to your efforts to put a positive face on his postings, quote:

"Well, Alex can be a bit condescending at times and I have had my strong disagreements with him but he does know SO much of Church history and tradition (he just needs to learn that some others might as well ", which I would read as 'he doesn't really mean it, and even if he does, he adds a lot in other ways', is a poor excuse for accepting uncharitable disrespect.

Alex's ongoing and unwelcome efforts to be "cute", interspersed with what we are supposed to accept as humility/self-deprecation, make it difficult to appreciate whatever meritorious contributions his posts might offer.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

I'm sorry you feel that way about me.

But I sometimes find it hard to take the immaturity of viewpoint that occurs among some newbies here.

I don't believe in attacking priests and icon-writers without asking them for input and an explanation.

The comments made here about another person's work are so ludicrous so as not to deserve a response. I've corresponded with iconographers when I didn't understand their work - so should Daniel n and so should you.

I've been called "condescending" when defending the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or anything that I feel is being attacked wrongly or unjustly.

And the character assassination that you have engaged in here, again without engaging me in conversation directly, is no good reflection on you and I don't need your approval or legitimation for anything.

Your post, by the way, is one of the most condescending posts I've seen. And the only reason I'm responding is at the request of a number of posters here who have contacted me to comment on your condescending tone that is unworthy of a poster on this forum.

Alex

Dear Brian,

Thank you . . .I think.

Yes, I've disagreed with you at times .

But because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I disagree with everyone on the same points.

And because I don't see eye to eye with you, doesn't mean my viewpoint is somehow more valid than yours. Perhaps we are both wrong. And perhaps we are both right.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

I find the preceding posts presuming to judge my character to be unacceptable and unacceptable to the rules of discourse on this Forum.

But I leave that to your judgement right now. I wasn't intending on coming back here before fulfilling my personal responsibilities, but the private e-mails about this thread prompted me.

I don't want to be in the middle of a new thread by those who are newcomers to this forum and don't know me nor care to find out more about me directly - but who presume to pass judgement on my character.

My crime here, as I see it, was to defend a priest and his iconographic work against summary condemnation by those who didn't give him a fair hearing. I've corresponded with iconographers to praise them for their work and to ask questions about it.

I think Fr. McNichol deserves the same, but especially from those who presume to sit in judgement over him - as they indeed sit in judgement over me now.

If defending a priest and calling attention to the immaturity of those who call themselves Catholic who do so is condescending, I pray the good Lord to strengthen me in such condescension until the end of my days.

God be with you all.

Alex

Neil,

I disagree. Even if they were all of the things you describe your own post is far worse because of its uncharitableness.

Admin

Daniel,

I believe that you are the one being snotty and unreasonable. Alex�s advice to you to contact the writer of these images and ask him why he created these images is good advice. It is certainly better than coming here to complain about it.

If you re-read all the posts on this thread you won�t find anyone embracing and celebrating the images you are complaining about. I believe that this is because no one seriously considers them to be icons. No one but you is threatened by them.

Admin

I see our administrator has already chimed in here. However, I want to add my $0.02 worth. If, as Christ teaches, they will know we are His followers by our love for one another, then I submit we are not evidencing that. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can argue without accusation and we can make our points heard without beating down those with whom we disagree.

Let's watch how we communicate for the tone of our communication says much about who and what we are.

Edward, deacon and sinner (and, in this case, moderator)

Dear Administrator and Fr. Deacon Ed,

Thank you for your erudite comments.

I had lunch with a Jesuit shrine director today who told me that Fr. McNichol is coming to give a lecture to the Jesuit Province of Upper Canada about his icon of Bernard Lonergan.

Perhaps I'll get a chance to speak with Fr. McNichol directly and ask him what Daniel n should have before passing judgement on him. I'll report to you if and when I do.

I privately mentioned some of the comments about Fr. McNichol on a certain internet discussion board that I was associated with and Father responded with comments approximating mine.

I told him that he should try not to be too, well, condescending . . .

Perhaps my comments in response to what was said here about Fr. McNichol were not my finest hour.

But after reviewing them, I withdraw none of them as I believe they were justified.

My alleged childishness was in response to what I perceived to be rude childish irresponsibility here - and that is not being condescending.

That is simply calling a spade - a spade.

This is the first time that I cannot apologise for or withdraw comments I've made that have caused a kerfuffle here.

I won't withdraw them. And submit to your judgement if I can ever continue here in future.

For now, I've bigger fish to fry.

Alex

Friends,

Does THE MEANING OF ICONS by Leonid Ouspensky, Vladimir Lossky, describe the Church rules for writing icons?

Can anyone recommend the book?

Paul

Yes, it is the classic text, I recommend it highly.
Apparently no one wishes to address my concerns in a serious manner without lapsing into ad hominum remarks. I am not "threatened" by these aberrational images; I am concerned, as an iconographer, with the abuse of the art and the indifference to these abuses. I agree that these are not icons. Note that they ARE published alongside icons and are painted in an iconic style by iconographers, which can confuse people.
I see that this has lapsed into a discussion about manners instead of the issues I have raised. I am a bit weary of the whole tone of the conversation, it can be tiring arguing the obvious with the obtuse. I also do not think I have anything to apologize for and have stated my concerns clearly, with no cogent response. I answered Alex's challenge.

Dear Daniel,

As a fellow iconographer, I can understand your fervor regarding icons. There are not a few sites out there that propose to have "traditional icons" when in fact they are simply paintings (and not good paintings either). There's always someone out there trying to make a buck. Sadly, many are duped into thinking they're acquiring the real thing.

Without following the rules set forth for iconographers, the results of many icons lack the spirituality necessary to produce authentic icons. AND, many people don't fully understand what it takes to be an iconographer (it's not an easy road to follow).

My prayers are with you in your endeavors.