Not-formaly declared heretic Non-Orthodox influenced Icons

[paul]

You read the Fathers as vying Protestant sects read the Scriptures. They set Scripture verses against each other. I quote St Theodore, you put St Gregory Palamas against him. Your quote from the latter is not clear. Where did you get it? Was is the context? As it stands, two Fathers contradict each other; and neither seems to understand the Scriptures. Try again.
You do not know the difference between "incorporeal" and "immaterial." The first means without a body, the latter without matter. Angels are without a body, but not immaterial. Only God is immaterial.
Incidentally, it is Augustine who taught that God, angels and the soul are immaterial. Also, he believed that all divine and angelic appearances in the OT were temporary and illusory. Even his Orthodox adimirers criticize him for that.
Remembering all that has been said thus far, let us turn to St John of Damascus for a definition of the icon. "An icon is a likeness, or a model (paradigm), an ektype of what it depicts" (Imago III, 16 PG 94 1337A)). I urge you to read what follows (preferably in Greek) in this third book of On the Divine Images.
Notice, an icon is a "likeness", i.e., similar to what it is compared. An icon is a "model" (i.e., example or pattern) of what it represents. An icon is an ektypos (i.e., a "work in relief") of the original. How, then, is it possible to paint or depict something invisible and without physical dimensions? If the "three men or angels" at the Oak of Mamre were in fact icons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you must believe that these three figures were a likeness, or paradigm or ektype of the divine Persons.
To repeat, the divine Nature and Persons are in themselves immaterial, uncircumscribable and invisible. They have no shape, no mensions, no weight, so to be depicted Thus, we may not represent in the icon the Divinity of Christ, but we rather paint the Incarnate prototype, as St Theodore the Studite says (Ref. II, 4).
If the "three men or angels" at the Oak of Mamre were in fact the Three Persons of the Trinity, what was the relationship between Their Divinity and the forms they took? Were the two natures interpenetrated?
No? Then, they were not the Trinity. Yes? Then, the three creatures and the three divine Persons were incarnated, for "the copy cannot be separated from its protype" (II, 6).
You hold that the Fathers teach that the "three men or angels" at Mamre with the Uncreated Energies? Which Fathers? Did they say that the "three men or angels" were likenesses, models or ektypes of the Energies? The Energies were the archetypes or prototypes of the three angels that appeared to Abraham?
To continue: St Thedore asserts, God the Father (the Godhead) cannot be depicted, "for to what likeness can the Godhead be compared; hence, the divine Scriptures forbid any representation of Him" (Ref. III, b3).
You say that what Abraham saw at Mamre was the divine Energies; but these are not Persons of the Trinity. The Uncreated Energies are not Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but Light or Grace or Power, etc. flowing from them. When manifested, they have not taken human form.
You think that my remarks about the Trinity and Its Energies are Western? That sounds clever, but what does it mean? What is "western" (as opposed to Orthodox)? Denying the distinction between the Persons and the Energy is Augustinian (Western?). In any case, we can "see" neither the Persons nor the Energies unless they are revealed or manifested. The Essence of God is ever indivisible and incommunicable.
Let us remember that there are many kinds of icons, as St John and St Theodore tell us. The icons thus far described and debated is not the same, for example, as the divine Son as "icon" of the Father; or the representation of the Cross; or man as the "icon" of God. You recall that Augustine said that the divine Trinity is reflected in the iconic soul of man as memory, intellect and will; but the Fathers declare that "the image of God" in man refers to the human faculties of mind and free will (St John of Damascus, de fid. Orth. I, 12). Interestingly, the icons I paint indicate these only symbolically, by implication. I cannot paint man's "mind" or "free will."

[George Australia]

I know that I am far from dispassionate, as Fr Nicholas points out, but I'm finding this exasperating!
Paul, even St John Damascene whom you so often quote, says that Abraham saw God and not a creature:
"

"But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify."

[paul]

I am bringing our discussion to a close. You clearly do not understand the theological issues. You do not even grasp the difference between the divine Person (hypostasis)of God the Son (Word, Logos) in Himself, and God the Son as incarnate (i.e., Jesus Christ).
I repeat: there can be no icon of the hyypostasis or ousia of God the Son --- as there can be none of the hypostasis or ousia of Father and the Holy Spirit. The icon which I paint of the Savior is the incarnate Lord. I can only paint His humanity which is visible, dimensional, circumscribed. God the Son is invisible, without dimension, uncircumscribed. He has never been seen and, therefore, can never be painted.
You do not comprehend the connection between Christian iconology and christology (or theology). If you are interested in reading about monophystism and iconology, you might find Paul Alexander's book on the Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople instructive.
What you say about the Fathers and Nestorianism is irrelevant, an attempt to disguise your ignorance on this subject.
The Theophany icon reveals the existence of the three Persons; but there is an icon of only the Son incarnate. Allusions to the Father and the Spirit are symbolic.
We were provided with an ancient icon of the Theophany by George Australia, with a "Hand" coming fom the heavens. Firstly, it is an "icon" poorly painted. I suspect too that the faith of the painter is reflected in this icon. Secondly, we are supposted to believe that because this icon is ancient it must offer an authentic iconology. Thirdly, there are many icons of the Theophony that do not show a "Hand" ostensibly representing God the Father.
Photios Kontoglou, for example, tells us that this should never be done. There are many things that have been done in the past and are still being done that are wrong. Another example, it is wrong that clouds be represented in iconography. The Russian Orthodox received this from the Latins and the Latins received it from the Buddhist's. This is an medieval practice.
No, the practice of showing the hand of God the Father in the icon of the Theophony is not 1,500 years old, just because you post an old icon with it in it. At best, this icon shows is that there was a mistake made 1,500 years ago.
You cannot tell me that simply because you find icons here and there that represent God the Father in this or some other way, we are confronted with iron clad evidence.
In iconography, instead of clouds you should and probably have seen, either a portion of a circle in one of the upper corners, such in the icon of Saint George seated on a horse, with a blessing hand come out from the circle, which is always signed IC XC, next to the hand. This is only the way you might see a hand coming from the heavens in icons.
No. You are confused between "hypostasis" and "nature." I give you the opportunity to define them before our audience; and, then, to relate these definitions to the subject before.
When and by whom was the Moscow Synod of 1666 annulled? If the Synod spoke the truth (as it did), its decisions cannot be negated.
"Nay-sayers"? I accept none of the assumptions in your silly list. In any case, you are the "nay-sayer," having denied traditional iconology. I have already answered all the objections found in those accusations.
Finally, do not try to intimidate me with name-dropping. Merely because you write the names of Fathers and say they support your position is hollow argumentation. I will not accept your word. How do we know they state that, for example, the Ancient of Days is God the Father; or that the title may be applied to all members of the Trinity?
Let us assume that one or more Fathers identify the Ancient of Days with God the Father. Do you want us to believe that thisfigure is an "icon" of the invisible God the Father? If so, then, we are constrained to hold that, in some ways, He is comparable to His icon? No? Then, wherein lies the likeness, the paradigm, the ektype? How is the the Ancient of Days like the Father? If the icon of the Ancient of Days did point to Him, it is allegory, metaphor, symbol.
We can have an icon of the Lord, the Theotokos, John the Baptizer, the Archangels. the Saints, because they belong to our history. They visibly, materially, or corporeally entered space and time. We cannot say that of the Father. So, we are confined, when alluding to Him, to words and symbols, metaphors and allegories.
When you invoke the names of the holy Fathers, be careful that you understand them. We cannot always trust the English translation (e.g., Nicene-Post Nicene Church Fathers). Liewise, we must understand the circumstances under which they theologized. Rarely, but occasionaly, they seem to misspeak; or is it that we do not understand their Greek, Latin, Syriac, Russian, etc.
Farewell. Paul

[George Australia]

I am bringing our discussion to a close. You clearly do not understand the theological issues. You do not even grasp the difference between the divine Person (hypostasis)of God the Son (Word, Logos) in Himself, and God the Son as incarnate (i.e., Jesus Christ).

Paul,
Farewell, and may God forgive you and enlighten you that God the Son is TWO NATURES united in ONE HYPOSTASIS, and not two Hypostases as you suggest.

[romiosini]

I didn't want my useless post to turn out into a war... The funny part is that I have asked that this doesn't turn out into one. I ask the apologies of Paul and George for what I did.

Romiosini

[George Australia]

(buckling on armor, awaiting the onslaught of arrows)

Don't worry, they're not coming
Of course you are absolutely correct.
I really didn't handle that one well. All I saw was the Orthodox Doctrines being twisted, and not that I was in fact talking to an Icon of God in Paul. I wish I was a better Christian than I am.
Please pray for me...because I am still angry and can't quite shake it off yet.

[George Australia]

I've thought about this, and I've decided to say it, and it will be the last thing I say in this thread.
Not too long ago on this forum, we had a discussion about "defending the Faith"- someone gave an example of a priest who said that if his church was burning he would throw himself and his family into the flames. Others including myself questioned how this was martyrdom, or witnessing of the Faith. The discussion continued with others stating what they would be prepared to do to defend the Faith, and others stating that they didn't think they were capable of it.
What disappoints me so much is that we who call ourselves "Traditionalists" will argue over the smallest minutae of detail-from the Calendar to when the Royal Doors of the Sanctuary should be closed, and even whether they should be called the Royal Doors. But when someone challenges the basic Dogmas of our Faith and,.....silence.

I note that this current thread has been viewed 882 times to date. And not one person- not one- objected to an Iconographer son of an Orthodox priest saying that the Holy Trinity is actually a "Holy Quartet" because God the Son is actually "two Persons"- only one of which is dipyctable in Icons.

Not one person objected to the statement that God the Son cannot be dipycted in Icons.

Not one person objected to the statement that God the Son was not circumscribed in the flesh.

instead, I hear things such as "it's just a technicality", "it's useless theology," and "extreme polemics."
The Dogmas concerning the God Whom we worship are distorted and there is a deafening silence, but talk about trick-or-treating and everyone has an opinion.
Whether people agree that the Trinity Icon is acceptable or not is not the issue here. What is the issue here is whether we are prepared to remain silent in the face of heresy because the one promulgating it holds the same opinion we do about the Trinity Icon- the old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" stand. And in all this, Christ, and the Faith of His Church for whom our Forefathers were tortured and killed for defending somehow get forgotten- because what is important is that we are accepted by the group for what we say. We strain the gnat of the Calendar to swallow the camel of heresy about the God we worship. Or else we say it's too "technical", too "theological", too "extreme" to defend our Faith.