Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
User avatar
Isaakos
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 4 January 2014 8:27 pm
Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin- Discerning the GOC’s.

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Isaakos »

Isn't it Pan-Orthodox because all the patriarchs were in attendance and represented? I mean, do you believe Old Believers are schismatic?

Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Archbishop Matthew Karpathakis

User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 6:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Cyprian »

Certain Orthodox thinkers, more enlightened than myself, with an excellent grasp of the Russian language, regard the Council of 1666-67 to be nothing other than a "robber council," which decisions by the way, were overturned by both ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate in recent decades.

You can search Paradosis Yahoo Group and Indiana list archives for postings by George Spruksts, who reposed in the Lord five years ago this coming March 7/20, and also Vladimir Moss addresses the council of 1666 in the following article:

The Icon of the Holy Trinity
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON% ... RINITY.htm

................
As for the argument:

No man hath seen God at any time. (1 John 4:12)

Notice this verse does not specifically mention the Father. The Son is God, yes? No man hath seen the Son in His essence either.

Who, it may be asked, is speaking to Moses here?

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33:20)

and yet ...

Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Genesis 32:40)

So, the question is, how did Jacob see God and his life was preserved, when Moses records that no man shall see God and live? There is a conundrum here, no?

What does St. Cyril of Jerusalem testify in his beautiful catechetical lectures? (they're online)

This Lord is He who afterwards was seen of Moses, as much as he was able to see. For the Lord is loving unto man, ever condescending to our infirmities.

again:

But the undimmed vision of the Father is reserved in its purity for the Son with the Holy Ghost.

St. John Chrysostom - Commentary on Isaiah:

Chapter 6

“I saw the Lord seated.” Christ has indeed said, “No one has seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has explained him.” And again: “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen him.” And to Moses he said, “No one can see my face and live.” How then can Isaiah claim to have seen the Lord? He did not actually contradict Christ, but spoke quite in harmony with him. Christ was talking about a precise observation of God, which no one has made. After all, no one has observed bare divinity in its pure essence except the Only-begotten. Isaiah, on the other hand, claimed to have seen his power. It is impossible to see God in and of himself. Isaiah saw God in an assumed form, one as much lowered as Isaiah’s weakness was elevated.

User avatar
Isaakos
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 4 January 2014 8:27 pm
Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin- Discerning the GOC’s.

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Isaakos »

All the theophanies of God to man in the Old Testament were the appearance of the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ.

And it is actually John 6:46

"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

And regarding the lifting of the anathemas by the 1666 synod, let's look at it this way: Everybody in Orthodoxy believes the Old Believers are schismatics. Why? Because they were anathematized at the 1666 council. This is therefore a clear example of the Pan-Orthodox scope of its authority which is accepted by all.

I believe, personally, that the MP and ROCOR acted hypocritically in trying to lift the anathemas, when they were imposed by all the Patriarchs and accepted by all the patriarchs. Is this not the very reason we don't accept that Athenagoras lifted the anathema of 1054, because it was accepted by all of Orthodoxy? SO how can one local church lift THESE anathemas when they were accepted by all of Orthodoxy? It is two-faced.

Now, we could dive into some deep theology here, but let's just take Christ at his word: No man has seen the Father.

Okay, then who is the Ancient of Days in Daniel's vision? The fathers themselves do not fully agree. some say the father, others say Christ.

I choose both. lol. Here is how:

  1. We know that it is a heresy condemned by the Church that the visions of the prophets were created. This is the doctrine of Barlaam the Calabrian, condemned at the hesychast synods of the 14th century. They were uncreated participations in God. But if Daniel saw an image of the father, and yet no man has seen the father, we would have to conclude he saw a symbol of the father which wasn't really him. But this would be heresy because it would introduce created symbols into the uncreated visions of God.

  2. But it is not entirely simple to say the one called the Ancient of Days is the Word, because one called a Son of Man approaches him to receive honor and glory from him. Some try to say this is an image of the incarnation, but this looks too much like Nestorianism, where there are two distinct Hypostases, The Word and the Man. It also smacks of the Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata.

So how can we understand this? It is my personal and private belief that we ARE seeing an image of the father here, but an uncreated one. How is that possible if no man has seen the Father? What did Christ say? "He who has seen me has seen the father." Christ himself is the icon of the father. I think it probable that what Daniel is seeing here is the WORD, in himself, manifesting the Father as the Ancient of Days, and that the Word, incomprehensibly is again manifesting himself as the incarnate son of God, the Son of Man, receiving honor and glory from the father. In other words, i believe BOTH figures are the Word, and he is teaching us through the variety of appearances a truth: That the son of Man receives honor and Glory from the Father. But as the Ancient of Days it was the WORD manifesting the father. And as the Son of Man it as the WORD manifesting the incarnation. I see no dogmatic or theological reason to reject this interpretation and it not only is in agreement with the fathers, but reconciles the differing opinions.

Now I admit that WE can symbolically and representationally depict the father, theoretically, as western art does. But for the purpose of Iconography which is not merely devotional but THEOLOGICALLY accurate, it is a mistake to think the father could be directly depicted. But having said that I believe it is possible to depict Christ as the Ancient of Days, and we ought to understand that, as the Ancient of Days, he is HIMSELF the Icon of the Father.

Does that make sense? I choose this opinion in the attempt to reconcile the conflicting points of view, taking into account the objections of both sides and in all things avoiding the Heresy of Nestorianism on the One hand and Barlaamism on the other hand. And to not make Christ into a liar.

Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Archbishop Matthew Karpathakis

User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 6:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Cyprian »

Isaakos wrote:

Isn't it Pan-Orthodox because all the patriarchs were in attendance and represented? I mean, do you believe Old Believers are schismatic?

The patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem did not attend the council. Yes, I adhere to the teaching of the Church that the Old Believers are indeed schismatic.

User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 6:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Cyprian »

Isaakos wrote:

All the theophanies of God to man in the Old Testament were the appearance of the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ.

Not all theophanies of the Old Testament are exactly the same. The sectarians who rail against the icons do not seem to grasp the subtle differences. In many theophanies of the Old Testament, God visits men and holds converse with them. However, that is not the case, for example in the night vision of Daniel, where the prophet beheld the Ancient of days. You will notice that the Father did not leave his place and come down to earth and hold converse with Daniel in this vision. Daniel beheld the Father as the Ancient of days.

And it is actually John 6:46
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

I already addressed this in my previous post. This is true. None which has been created has seen the Father in his bare essence as he truly is, not even the angels. And yet, how are we to reconcile this with Christ declaring the "angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven"? (Matthew 18:10) I want these puppy theologians who reject images of the Father to explain to us how the created angels behold the face of the Father in heaven? How are they seeing the Father's face? Ask them to explain that to you, if they can.


And regarding the lifting of the anathemas by the 1666 synod, let's look at it this way: Everybody in Orthodoxy believes the Old Believers are schismatics. Why? Because they were anathematized at the 1666 council. This is therefore a clear example of the Pan-Orthodox scope of its authority which is accepted by all.

I just cited Vladimir Moss, who affirms that the Old Believers are schismatic, but also does not accept all the pronouncements of the Council of 1667 as Pan-Orthodox. Neither did ROCOR, and neither do I.

I believe, personally, that the MP and ROCOR acted hypocritically in trying to lift the anathemas, when they were imposed by all the Patriarchs and accepted by all the patriarchs. Is this not the very reason we don't accept that Athenagoras lifted the anathema of 1054, because it was accepted by all of Orthodoxy? SO how can one local church lift THESE anathemas when they were accepted by all of Orthodoxy? It is two-faced.

That is the whole point. In that time, and in ours, the judgments of the Council of 1666-67 were NOT accepted by all of Orthodoxy, and to clarify once again, only the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were in attendance. The deposition of Patriarch Nikon by the Council of 1666 was rescinded in another council in 1682 convened by Tsar Theodore, which also condemned Avvakum. In 1974, ROCOR only overturned the anathemas against the Old Rites, but did not recognize the schismatic Old Ritualists themselves.

Now, we could dive into some deep theology here, but let's just take Christ at his word: No man has seen the Father.

Ah, so quick to cast aside the theology of the Church, which is central to understanding the allowance for images of the Father. I already showed how the Fathers understand this verse. Their understanding and teaching is that the "undimmed" vision of the Father is reserved for the Son, but that God condescends to the weakness of our feeble nature and reveals himself to us as much as we are able to receive it. I can certainly cite several more instances from the Patristic writings, if the first few failed to persuade you.

Okay, then who is the Ancient of Days in Daniel's vision? The fathers themselves do not fully agree. some say the father, others say Christ.

False! If this was actually the case, you would gladly cite a bevy of sources, but you have not, and neither has anyone else been able to. I challenge anyone who rejects images of the Father to cite all these supposed fathers who interpret the Ancient of days in this passage as the Son. In the meantime, I will cite the services of the Church:

Octoechos, Tone 5, Midnight Office, Canticle 4, troparion: "Daniel was initiated into the mystery of the one Godhead, threefold Light, and he saw Christ the Judge going towards the Father".

I choose both. lol. Here is how:

The Church is not interested in our private opinions.

1. We know that it is a heresy condemned by the Church that the visions of the prophets were created. This is the doctrine of Barlaam the Calabrian, condemned at the hesychast synods of the 14th century. They were uncreated participations in God. But if Daniel saw an image of the father, and yet no man has seen the father, we would have to conclude he saw a symbol of the father which wasn't really him. But this would be heresy because it would introduce created symbols into the uncreated visions of God.

As I have stated repeatedly, no man has seen the Father in His bare essence. Neither has any man seen the Son in His bare essence either. They are equally invisible.

St. John Chrysostom Homily XVIII on 1 Timothy:

"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." As, indeed, no one hath seen the Son, nor can see Him."

Declare to us Isaak, since you assert that all Old Testament theophanies were of the Word, how was the pre-incarnate Word seen in the theophanies of the Old Testament? Was the Word seen in His essence? A simple yea or nay. If not, how was the Son of God seen prior to the Incarnation? Declare it to us, if you are able.

So how can we understand this? It is my personal and private belief that we ARE seeing an image of the father here, but an uncreated one.

Once again, we are not interested in your private and personal speculations. The Church was not waiting for you or I to be born to tell everyone how to believe aright. Deliver to us the teachings of the fathers, or cease your theological speculations.

How is that possible if no man has seen the Father? What did Christ say?

For the last time, the Fathers are explicitly clear that Christ means no man has seen the Father in a precise observation, as he truly is, in his bare essence or nature. Allow me, if you please, to quote St. Epiphanius, for perhaps it will help:

St. Epiphanus of Salamis, Panarion Volume III:

This Father, Son and Holy Spirit has always vouchsafed to appear in visions to his saints, as each was able to receive [the vision] in accordance with the gift which had been <given> him by the Godhead. This gift was granted to each of those who were deemed worthy, sometimes to see the Father as each was able, <sometimes> to hear his voice as well as he could. When he said by the mouth of Isaiah, “My beloved servant shall understand,” this is the voice of the Father. And when Daniel saw “the Ancient of Days,” this is a vision of the Father. And again, when he says in the prophet, “I have multiplied visions and been portrayed by hands of the prophets,” this is the voice of the Son. And when, in Ezekiel, “The Spirit of God took me” and “brought me out unto the plain,” this refers to the Holy Spirit.

and again St. Epiphanius' Panarion in another place:

"What can we say, then, since the Gospel says that no one has ever seen God, while the prophets and apostles, and the Lord himself, say that they have? Is there any contradiction in the sacred scripture? Never! Prophets and apostles did see God, and this is true. But they saw him as they were able and as it was possible for them, and God appeared to them as he willed, “for with him all things are possible.” It is plain and universally agreed that God is invisible and incomprehensible; but on the other hand, he is able to do what he wills, “For none can resist his will.”"

And first and foremost, it is not possible for a human being to see God, and the visible cannot see the invisible. But the invisible God has accomplished the impossible by his lovingkindness and power, and by his might has rendered some worthy of seeing the invisible. And the one who < saw > him saw the invisible and infinite, not as the infinite was, but as the nature of one who had no power to see him could bear when empowered to the fullest. And there can be no discrepancy in the sacred scripture, and no text will be found in contradiction to another."

"He who has seen me has seen the father." Christ himself is the icon of the father.

Let's be precise. The Son in his divinity is the icon or image of his Father. According to his humanity, Christ is the natural image of his all-pure mother. When Scripture calls Christ the image (Gk: 'icon') of the invisible God, it is referring to his invisible divinity, not his fleshly nature.

St. John Chrysostom Homily III on Colossians: "The Image of the Invisible" is itself also invisible, and invisible in like manner, for otherwise it would not be an image."

I think it probable that what Daniel is seeing here is the WORD, in himself, manifesting the Father as the Ancient of Days, and that the Word, incomprehensibly is again manifesting himself as the incarnate son of God, the Son of Man, receiving honor and glory from the father. In other words, i believe BOTH figures are the Word, and he is teaching us through the variety of appearances a truth: That the son of Man receives honor and Glory from the Father. But as the Ancient of Days it was the WORD manifesting the father. And as the Son of Man it as the WORD manifesting the incarnation. I see no dogmatic or theological reason to reject this interpretation and it not only is in agreement with the fathers, but reconciles the differing opinions.

"I think...I believe" More private interpretations. Either tell us what the Universal Church believes, or better to remain silent.

Now I admit that WE can symbolically and representationally depict the father, theoretically, as western art does. But for the purpose of Iconography which is not merely devotional but THEOLOGICALLY accurate, it is a mistake to think the father could be directly depicted.

I think the mistake rests with those who are not steeped in the theology of the Church, but presume to preach to everyone else about the icons. Their private interpretations lead to their errors.

Does that make sense? I choose this opinion in the attempt to reconcile the conflicting points of view, taking into account the objections of both sides and in all things avoiding the Heresy of Nestorianism on the One hand and Barlaamism on the other hand. And to not make Christ into a liar.

I am not interested in scholastic rationalizations in an attempt to compromise. There is no compromise in theological matters. Either the Father has been seen or he has not. The teaching of the Church is that the Father has been seen.

The Transfiguration Of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ
Matins
Exapostilarion

Today on Tabor in the manifestation of Thy Light, O Word, Thou unaltered Light from the Light of the unbegotten Father, we have seen the Father as Light and the Spirit as Light, guiding with light the whole creation.

User avatar
Isaakos
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 4 January 2014 8:27 pm
Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin- Discerning the GOC’s.

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by Isaakos »

Cypriot, why are you treating a single post of mine as if it were an active dialog with your objections? lol. Thank you for showing me the quotes, I appreciate it! I also 100% hold to the encyclical of 1992 issued by our synod.

We are brothers, there is no need to be defensive or aggressive my friend!

:)

Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Archbishop Matthew Karpathakis

jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: Can icons representing the Father be venerated?

Post by jgress »

Isaakos wrote:

Cypriot, why are you treating a single post of mine as if it were an active dialog with your objections? lol. Thank you for showing me the quotes, I appreciate it! I also 100% hold to the encyclical of 1992 issued by our synod.

We are brothers, there is no need to be defensive or aggressive my friend!

:)

I suspect that having online arguments over theology and politics is how Cyprian expresses his friendship. ;)

Post Reply