romiosini wrote:Now remember! I don't want my post to lash out at some war, so please choose your words carefully.
OK, how's this:
"Paul's article and posting do not appear to be in agreement with the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church, and he appears to be in self contradiction if he accepts the dipyction of the Uncreated Light of the Transfiguration in Icons."
George Australia wrote:romiosini wrote:Now remember! I don't want my post to lash out at some war, so please choose your words carefully.
OK, how's this:
"Paul's article and posting do not appear to be in agreement with the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church, and he appears to be in self contradiction if he accepts the dipyction of the Uncreated Light of the Transfiguration in Icons."
see it wasn't that hard! LOL jk....
Here is another traditional Icon dipycting the Holy Trinity- used on the Feast Day we celebrate the Theophany of the Holy Trinity at the Baptism of Christ. The Uncreated Voice of the Father (which would not have been 'visible' as we know it) coming from the opening heavens is dipycted in a visible way above the Uncreated Holy Spirit descending "like a dove" on the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit was not incarnated as either a dove at the Baptism, nor as fire at the Pentecost. The Scriptures say He "descended like a dove" ("ώς περιστεράν καταβαίνον") and "appeared to them divided tongues as of fire". Both of these manifestations are of the Uncreated Holy Spirit, both of them are manifestations of Uncreated Energy. Since these manifestations, like the Uncreated Light are, in fact, Uncreated, they are not 'visible' in the same way that a chair is visible, or a human being is visible. The Holy Spirit descending on Christ was not reflecting sunlight which made Him visible. The Light of Mt. Tabor was not the same light we see- in fact the Fathers say that the Light of Mt. Tabor and the Darkness of Mt. Sinai are the same thing. And all these manifestations of the Uncreated Energy were certainly not Incarnations. Why is it then, that Paul Azkoul says these Uncreated, Unincarnate manifestations are dipyctable in Icons, yet uses the same criteria to forbid dipyctions of the God the Father? As I said, an Icon is not a photograph. No one would suggest that the Icon below is a photograph of the event- but it is an Icon of it, just as a human being does not contain a photograph of God, but does contain His Icon.
The often-quoted passage of Scripture in these debates is: "And the Father who sent Me has testified of Me. You have never heard His voice at any time nor seen His form." (John 5:37) But Whose Voice spoke to men on Mount Tabor and in the Jordan? (Matt 3:17 and Matt 17:5) and what about Christ's answer to Phillip who asked Him: "Lord, show us the Father, and that is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father, so how can you say 'show us the Father'?"( john 14: 8-9) Because we can dipyct Christ in Icons since the Incarnation, and Christ is the Icon of the Father (Colossians 1:15)- are we not dipycting an Icon of an Icon of the Father when we dipyct Christ? If we follow Paul Azkoul's logic to it's conclusion, we should not even dipyct Christ in Icons.
<<ΘΕΟΣ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΕΦΑΝΕΝ ΗΜΙΝ>>
"GOD IS THE LORD AND HAS APPEARED UNTO US."
George,
I am sorry, but you are mistaken on all points. The angels in the icon of The Hospitality of Abraham and the Archangels and any other angel that has been depicted in iconography can be depicted because they have been seen before. We know what they look like since they have been seen so they are permitted to be painted.
Where in the Fathers of the Church, or the Scriptures was it said that the three visitors at the Oak of Mamre were in fact Father Son and Holy Spirit, God? As I said, if the two angels in the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham were meant as appearences of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit then they can not be depicted, because they have never been seen before. To use the words of Saint Theodore the Studite, only what has been circumscribed may be depicted. What has never been seen can not be depicted.
Also, you forget, all things have a certain materiality, except for God, even angels. Angels can be seen because they have a materiality and we have seen angels so they can be depicted.
God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a body and they did not take on a body at any time. Only one of the Trinity took on a body, or rather circumscribed, which was God the Son, even God the Son could not be depicted if He had not taken on material and circumscribed Himself in Jesus Christ. You must believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit became circumscribed at the Oak of Mamre.
To tell me that I should have the icons of the Archangels removed from my iconostasis is not understanding my argument and not recognizing the difference between circumscription and uncircumscription nor comprehending how Angels and Saints can be painted in icons since they have been seen prior to their depiction.
Again, the reason why the uncreated light at the Transfiguration was made visible and allowed to be painted in icons is because it was seen, or rather allowed to be shown to us by God. This is the mystery of the uncreated energy of the uncreated light. How can it be seen? This not the same as seeing the persons of the Trinity. Simply put, we can depict the light because it has been seen. We have not "seen God the Father at any time " as Christ said, so we can not depict Him. We can only depict the Holy Spirit as fire or a dove, because he was seen as a dove and fire, which does not mean He became incarnate as a dove and fire, but only that He had mystically taken the form of a dove, etc.
As the Scripture says "..and Christ coming up out of the water saw the heavens open and the Spirit like a dove [not as a dove] descending upon Him.." [Mark 1:10] Like a dove, not that He became an actual dove. Since He had been "like a dove" He could now be depicted.
The situation where God told Moses to depict two Cherubim above the ark is not a good example either. If you read my article on the Theology of the icon on my site, you will see how this very example is explained. We know how the Cherubim look by this event alone. God told Moses how to represent them, so now we know what they look like, so now they can be depicted. You think this is idolatry? God commanded it. It is not me allowing it.
Again, there is nothing in the Scriptures, Holy Fathers, or Councils of the Church which condones depicting the Divinity or anything unseen.
Lastly, the 7th Ecumenical Council dis-agree with your mistaken premise, simply read what they said on my site. Also this is what the Great Sobor of Moscow 1666 says concerning the depiction of the Trinity:
"We synodically declare that the so called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church by the Latins."
Code: Select all
They also called it "extreme madness and impiety"Through your prayers,
paul
What has never been seen can not be depicted. This is where the commandment "Thou shalt not make any graven image", comes in.
The Holy Spirit was seen as a "dove"...the Father, well that will be next. 
Also this is what the Great Sobor of Moscow 1666 says concerning the depiction of the Trinity:
"We synodically declare that the so called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church by the Latins."
Things are getting bad if we are using the Russian church to determine what was of a Latin influence. 
Bells are a Latin influence. Most Russian Icons are a Latin influence. A priest, another representation of the prototype, is a Latin influence when he shaves...in fact, the GOA, OCA, and the Antiochians are a Latin influence.
paul wrote:Where in the Fathers of the Church, or the Scriptures was it said that the three visitors at the Oak of Mamre were in fact Father Son and Holy Spirit, God??
Paul,
The Coptic exegesis of the 'three men' under the Oak of Mamre is that it was Christ and two Angels, and you seem to have adopted this exegesis. Abraham's vision at the oak of Mamre was a vision of God, not in His Essence, but in His Energies. One or two Western Fathers (for example, St. Justin the Martyr) say that Abraham saw Christ and two angels. But the Greek Fathers and St. Augustine say that he saw the Holy Trinity in the form of three young men or angels. They all agree that Abraham saw God. Thus St. Gregory the Theologian says that "the great Patriarch saw God not as God but as a man". Again St. John Chrysostom writes that God appeared to Abraham, but not with "the nature of a man or an angel", but "in the form of a man". And St. John of Damascus, the great defender of the icons, writes: "Abraham did not see the Nature of God, for no one has seen God at any time, but an icon of God, and falling down he venerated it."
paul wrote:As I said, if the two angels in the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham were meant as appearences of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit then they can not be depicted, because they have never been seen before. To use the words of Saint Theodore the Studite, only what has been circumscribed may be depicted. What has never been seen can not be depicted.
Again, this is erroneous. St. Gregory Palamas, commenting on the Patriarch Jacob's words: "I have seen God face to face [or person to person], and my soul has been saved", writes: "Let [the cacodox] hear that Jacob saw the face of God, and not only was his life not taken away, but as he himself says, it was saved, in spite of the fact that God says: 'None shall see My face and live'. Are there then two Gods, one having His face accessible to the vision of the saints, and the other having His face beyond all vision? Perish the impiety! The face of God which is seen is the Energy and Grace of God condescending to appear to those who are worthy; while the face of God that is never seen, which is beyond all appearance and vision let us call the Nature of God."
paul wrote:Also, you forget, all things have a certain materiality, except for God, even angels. Angels can be seen because they have a materiality and we have seen angels so they can be depicted.
How can you say that an Incorporeal being has "a materiality"?
Yes, an Angel can only be either in Heaven or not, but this doesn't mean they have a body.
paul wrote:God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a body and they did not take on a body at any time. Only one of the Trinity took on a body, or rather circumscribed, which was God the Son, even God the Son could not be depicted if He had not taken on material and circumscribed Himself in Jesus Christ. You must believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit became circumscribed at the Oak of Mamre.
No, we don't have to believe this, as the Father's point out. What Abraham saw was the Divine Energy, not the Divine Nature. You seem to be saying, Paul, that the Holy Spirit was incarnated as a dove at the Baptism of Christ, and was therefore visible.
paul wrote:Again, the reason why the uncreated light at the Transfiguration was made visible and allowed to be painted in icons is because it was seen, or rather allowed to be shown to us by God. This is the mystery of the uncreated energy of the uncreated light. How can it be seen? This not the same as seeing the persons of the Trinity.
Paul, this is a very Western notion you have. According to Orthodoxy, the Divine Energy is Uncreated, that is, the Divine Energy is as much God as the Divine Nature is God. Seeing the Divine Energy is still seeing God, it is not seeing a creation. Even if, as you say, Abraham only saw the pre-incarnate Christ, what he was seeing was the Divine Energy. If Abraham saw the Divine Energy of the pre-incarnate Christ, why couldn't he see the Divine Energy of the Holy Trinity?
paul wrote:Simply put, we can depict the light because it has been seen. We have not "seen God the Father at any time " as Christ said, so we can not depict Him.
Again with the same quote from scripture always used in these debates...... whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father, the Son is the Icon of the Father. The Uncreated Light is the same Divine Energy seen by Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaiah etc, as wello as the same Uncreated light seen by Orthodox Saints.
paul wrote:We can only depict the Holy Spirit as fire or a dove, because he was seen as a dove and fire, which does not mean He became incarnate as a dove and fire, but only that He had mystically taken the form of a dove, etc. As the Scripture says "..and Christ coming up out of the water saw the heavens open and the Spirit like a dove [not as a dove] descending upon Him.." [Mark 1:10] Like a dove, not that He became an actual dove. Since He had been "like a dove" He could now be depicted.
Well, actually, this is incorrect. In the Koine, the Gospel says that the Holy Spirit "ώς περιστεράν καταβαίνον". The word "ώς" ("like") refers to the verb "καταβαίνον" ("descending") and not to the noun "περιστεράν" ("dove"), therefore this phrase means that the Holy Spirit :"descended the way a dove descends", not that He looked like a dove. If the Evangelist meant to say that the Holy Spirit looked like a dove, he would have written: "καταβαίνον ώς περιστεράν" ("descending in the form of a dove").
The dove in Iconography is merely a figurative representation of the Presence of the Holy Spirit, not an image of what He looked like; in the same way that the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent is not an image of what it looks like- since it doesn't "look" like anything.
paul wrote:Again, there is nothing in the Scriptures, Holy Fathers, or Councils of the Church which condones depicting the Divinity or anything unseen.
Thank Heaven the Divine Energy has been seen! By the way, who "saw" the Ladder of Divine Ascent that it may be dipycted in icons?
paul wrote:Also this is what the Great Sobor of Moscow 1666 says concerning the depiction of the Trinity: "We synodically declare that the so called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church by the Latins."
I am Greek, and therefore may be wrong, but wasn't this the same "Great Sobor" that was convened by the Tsar in order to depose the Righteous Patriarch Nikon, and 16 years later this "Great Sobor" was annulled by the Eastern Patriarchs? And wasn't the prime mover of this "Great Sobor" the "Metropolitan" Paisios Ligarides who was already defrocked by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?