Not-formaly declared heretic Non-Orthodox influenced Icons

[George Australia]

A dear friend from St. Andrews Theological College, Sydney just pointed this out to me.
In many Icons, (such as St. George) the Hand of God is dipycted at the top. Whose Hand is this? If we accept the teachings of Paul Azkoul and George Gabriel, we must conclude that it is the Hand of Christ, since only He was Incarnated.
But how then, do we explain the fact that a fifth century mosaic in the Church of St. Maria Maggore in Rome shows this Hand of God blessing the Ascension of Christ?
And how do we explain this sixth century Palestinian Icon [below] of the Baptism of Christ? Whose Hand is dypicted at the top?
If dypicting God the Father in bodily form is an innovation, then this "innovation" is at least 1500 years old!

[Anastasios]

When I get home this evening I will scan in some material from Etna on this.

[paul]

My reply will come to you in parts.
I have no intention of researching all your uncited quotations from the Fathers, etc. As I read them, I am not certain of their context or that they may not have been given a special understanding by you. Neither aim I certain of your theological assumptions.
What makes you think that I would be convinced by a "Coptic exegesis" of Abraham's encounter with three angels or men (andres)? Why do you accept the authority of monophysites? Surely, you do not expect me to believe that the holy Fathers support its theology or christology?
You are aware that Orthodox Chrisitan theology distinguishes in God --- Nature, Persons and Uncreated Energies. The three distinct Persons share a common Nature or Essence, and each exercuze identical multiple Energies (of which Light is one of them).
Before you call upon Augustine as an authority, be certain that you understand his triadology ("opposite of equals"). His christology borders on Nestorianism.
Orthodoxy teaches that God the Father is the Source of the Trinity: the Son is eternally begotten of Him, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from Him. God the Father is "the abyss of Divinity" (St Basil the Great, St Gregory Palamas). He manifests the Son and the Spirit, but is not manifested. He reveals the Son and the Spirit, but is not revealed --- except as the Son reveals Him. In other words, he who has "seen" the Son has "seen" the Father; and he in whom the Spirit dwells also "knows" the Father.
No one has seen the Father at any time; and, for that matter, no creature may behold the Persons of the Son and the Spirit. We know the Son only because He was revealed in the flesh. We "know" the Spirit only because He has been manifested "like a dove" or "like fire." And, of course, God has planted in each man a "knowledge" of Himself. In themselves, however, the three Persons are unknown and unknowable. We cannot now, nor shall we ever know, the Persons of the Trinity as They know Themselves. We are not Roman Catholics awaiting the "beatific vision."
Thus, even if we concede that, at the Oak of Mamre, the Holy Spirit took the form of an angel (which He did not), the Father must be excepted. You may argue that there are icons which show the Hand of God the Father. Then, you must admit that God has a human hand; or you hold that He manifested Himself as a Hand (an idea which finds no support in the Scriptures or the Fathers). The point is that "the abyss of Divinity" (Who, indeed, is also a Person) cannot, has not, will not burden Himself with some visible and circumscribed form.
You maintain that the Uncreated Energy of Light was manifested to Moses, to the Apostles on Mt Thabor, to St Symeon the New Theologian, etc. Thus, it may be depitcted in icons. Does it, then, follow that God the Father took the form of an angel? Moreover, it was the Energy of Light on these occasion that was visibly shown, not the Essence or Persons of the Trinity. You meddling with the mystery of the Trinity with your non sequitur.
Your quotation from St John of Damascus makes no sense. There is no icon of the Father, but the Person of the Son. There can be no icon of God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit, because they are not visible or circumscribed. Abraham, therefore, saw neither Nature nor an icon of God --- unless you want us to believe that the Persons of the Trinity were incarnate in the "young men or angels" --- which is clearly impossible for the Father, while we have no evidence that the Spirit ever draped Himself in angelic or human form. I have read that the middle angel is often depicted as a type of Christ.
Do you suspect that the Trinity was hiding behind the three "young men or angels"? Were they manifested "like a dove" in them? They were not incarnated? I repeat, Abraham's holy visitors were in fact three angels (or young men) who acted as symbols of the Trinity
Paul
Please do not mention "the Ancient of Days." He is Christ, as the feast of the Circumcission declares.

[George Australia]

I have no intention of researching all your uncited quotations from the Fathers, etc.

OK

As I read them, I am not certain of their context or that they may not have been given a special understanding by you. Neither aim I certain of your theological assumptions.

What is the "context" and the "special understanding" of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain when he says that "God the Father should be dipycted as the Ancient of Days"?

Why do you accept the authority of monophysites? Surely, you do not expect me to believe that the holy Fathers support its theology or christology?

I never said I accept the authority of monophysites, I was suggesting that you might be accepting their authority. Nor did I say that the Holy Fathers support this, I said that most except one or two Western Fathers oppose this.

Before you call upon Augustine as an authority, be certain that you understand his triadology ("opposite of equals"). His christology borders on Nestorianism.

What about all the Greek Fathers- does their Christology border on Nestorianism too?

No one has seen the Father at any time; and, for that matter, no creature may behold the Persons of the Son and the Spirit....There can be no icon of God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit, because they are not visible or circumscribed.

Paul, you are getting a bit confused between "hypostasis" and "Nature". The Seventh Ecumenical Council teaches that "An icon is not like the original with respect to essence (Nature), but with respect to hypostasis (Person)". Is the Icon of the Baptism of Christ an Icon of the Holy Trinity as the Church teaches? then the three questions we must ask are:
Q1) What in the Icon of the Baptism dipycts the Hypostasis of the Son?
A1) Christ in the Jordan River.

Q2) What in the Icon of the Baptism dipycts the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit?
A2) The dove.

Q3) What in the Icon of the Baptism dipycts the Hypostasis of the Father?
A3) The Hand.

There is no icon of the Father, but the Person of the Son. There can be no icon of God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit, because they are not visible or circumscribed.

Are you now saying that even God the Son is not dypictable beacause he was not circumscribed? And if Christ is the Icon of the Father, when we dipyct Him, do we not have an Icon of an Icon of the Father?

The "Nay-sayers" of the Trinity Icon tell us it's uncanonical- until you quote the The Rudder as saying it is, and that the "canon" their argument depends on comes from a "Sobor" that was annulled.

Then the "Nay-sayer" tell you that the Holy Trinity is undipyctable until you show then the Icon of the Baptism of Christ.

Then the "Nay-sayers" tell you that the Divine Energy cannot be dipycted because the Divine Energy is uncreated, uncircumscribed and unincarnate, until you show the Icon of the Transiguration which dipycts it.

Then the "Nay-sayers" tell you that the Divine Energy is not God- until you point out all the Fathers who say the Divine Energy is God.

Then the "Nay-sayers" tell you that dipycting the Father in bodily form is an innovation- and when you point out a fifth century Icon which dipycts Him, they tell you that either the Hand that you see is not there, or they go back to the argument that the Divine Energy is undipyctable (which you've already proved wrong) or they tell you that it is not an Icon of the Trinity, when the Church says it is......

Is it just me, or does this smack of another agenda?

[George Australia]

Please do not mention "the Ancient of Days." He is Christ, as the feast of the Circumcission declares.

And would you also like us to burn the writings of Hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome, St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Symeon of Thessalonica, and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite who say that the Ancient of Days seen by Daniel is God the Father? Would this help your argument?
Facts remain facts, Paul, even if we choose to ignore them.
The term "Ancient of Days", like "God", is applicable to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

[George Australia]

I hate to tell you all that "i told you so", but can I also point out that two days ago I said in a previous post on this thread:

If we follow Paul Azkoul's logic to it's conclusion, we should not even dipyct Christ in Icons.

and now, only two days later, Paul Azkoul presents us with the "logical conclusion" when he says:

There is no icon of the Father, but the Person of the Son. There can be no icon of God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit, because they are not visible or circumscribed.

Paul says we cannot dypict even God the Son. Therefore it follows that the Icons we have of Christ do not dipyct the Second Person of the Trinity...Why? because the Second Person of the Trinity is the Icon of the First Person of the Trinity.
And even more baffling- Paul now tells us that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not circumscribed in the flesh! Apparently according to Azkoul, the Theotokos is only the "Christotokos", so who is the Nestorian now? St. Augustine or Paul Azkoul?
Does TomS still think this is "a mere technicality"? And does anastasios still think that this is useless "theologizing"?
And can we now see where this new Iconoclasm is leading?

[尼古拉前执事]

And would you also like us to burn the writings of ...

George, please stop impationately overreacting implying that pople want to spit on icons or burn writingd just because there are Fathers that disagree on things and he is taking other Father's positions and not the ones you are choosing. One cannot have a calm, reasoned discussion when one side makes these leaps and bounds to such polemical extremism.

Also, for the record, I repeat that saints can be wrong and that before a judgement is made, opinion either way are allowed.

Please also note that the commentaries in the Rudder are not the rules, but the canons themselves.