But these came straight from a monastery in Egypt. We renovated the walls and iconostasis with this beautiful wood and got everything from a monastery (idk which one) including the communion tables for outside, altars, pew decorations, marriage chairs, and pope chair and they are all coptic and it is evident. the icons came in the same cargo container from Egypt and they are all signed saying "Abouna Mina El-Komos" and then something in arabic (my arabic is terrible, the only word i could make out was 'dare' which is monastery". 3/4 of the priests in our church graduated from the Eklerikeya and Abouna Bishoy was very strict about the church rites and traditions. he built the baptism room with one door form the outside and a door leading into the church. I am pretty sure he knows what he is putting into his church. Let alone we live in the Archdiocese and Anba David is also very strict with church rites and traditions.
The iconostasis at St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church in East Brunswick in New Jersey (the main church) was manufactured by Eng. Magued Makramallah. It was not manufactured at a monastery.
The iconostasis is actually quite beautiful and quite Orthodox.
The paintings in the church were not carried out by a monk. They were painted by an independent artist, not a monk. He recently got married to be exact.
Fr. Bishoy (of blessed memory) was a seminarian. Fr. Michael Tobia was a seminarian. Fr. Marcos was a seminarian.
Fr. Mark was not a seminarian. Fr. Kyrillos was not a seminarian.
The choice of that particular style for the paintings was a controversy that was waged in the Board of Deacons and members of the congregation. The paintings were adapted to "Orthodox" Content.
I am not going to comment on His Grace's views. It is not my place to offer comments on behalf of a bishop or a priest. I don't even exist. I'm an internet phenomenon.
Perhaps, for your own curiosity, and satisfying it, you may have one on one discussion with His Grace Bishop David and pose that particular question.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128357#msg128357 date=1296071066]
The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
I don't think they did father Peter. We learned in class about the first exchange between the french and the egyptians in the 17th century. They were facinated with each other because everything about the other was just so utterly foriegn. You gotta understand, at that point the coptic church had been seperated from the western world for 1200 yrs. they had no idea what was happening anywhere other than in Egypt. and frankly, as those 1200 years include some of the most vicious persecutions in coptic history, I doubt they cared too much about what was happening to iconagraphy in the western world.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=10539.msg128417#msg128417 date=1296085315] My dear spud--Copticuser,
The iconostasis at St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church in East Brunswick in New Jersey (the main church) was manufactured by Eng. Magued Makramallah. It was not manufactured at a monastery.
The iconostasis is actually quite beautiful and quite Orthodox.
The paintings in the church were not carried out by a monk. They were painted by an independent artist, not a monk. He recently got married to be exact.
Fr. Bishoy (of blessed memory) was a seminarian. Fr. Michael Tobia was a seminarian. Fr. Marcos was a seminarian.
Fr. Mark was not a seminarian. Fr. Kyrillos was not a seminarian.
The choice of that particular style for the paintings was a controversy that was waged in the Board of Deacons and members of the congregation. The paintings were adapted to "Orthodox" Content.
I am not going to comment on His Grace's views. It is not my place to offer comments on behalf of a bishop or a priest. I don't even exist. I'm an internet phenomenon.
Perhaps, for your own curiosity, and satisfying it, you may have one on one discussion with His Grace Bishop David and pose that particular question.
Ok I'm convinced that you are either married to the physical manifestation of Google.... or you're a figment of our imagination!
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128317#msg128317 date=1296048942] Lol! Rublev's icon is not naturalistic at all. The proportions of the angels are all elongated. Their features are stylised. They are not the representations of real people sitting in a studio. The fact that Greek and Egyptian styles of iconography differ does not matter. What matters is the theology and practice of iconography which is the same. And what matters is being obedient to the Tradition of the Church not constantly deciding for ourselves what we prefer. That attitude is entirely Protestant. What we like and what we prefer has no bearing on the Church, we must receive the Tradition, seek to understand the Tradition, and pass on the Tradition.
Thank you for pointing out the differences, I didn't notice that it was somewhat characterised. I have no problem with your appeal to tradition; I am the discipleship leader in my Church and a faithful Orthodox Christian for some time. My confession Father is aware of my devotional practices; I have done nothing under a rock, out of self will or disobedience.
I try to do all I do in good conscience before God, I visit my father of confession on a regular basis and I do my best to make him aware of everything that I do.
H.G. Bishop Kallistos said on the different topic of females in the priesthood. It is all fair and well to appeal to tradition but you have to realise that not all people in this era of sexual revolution will not find the idea of such an appeal convincing; I am also absolutely entitled as a faithful Christian to ask questions so long as I do not err in stubbornness, self-will or any rejection of sacred things. I believe in an era where art is more diverse and we have so many more visual mediums there is merit in asking these questions.
To say that Greek and Coptic iconographic styles are different but it doesn't matter doesn't feel like a good explanation and I would like to be satisfied. There are differences in like in the case of jurisdictional liturgical traditions for example there will be many points of difference in length, language, music, arrangement of the Church, implements of the altar but we have a good understanding of what must be held in common such as Eucharistic prayers, facing towards the east and so on.
In the case of iconography what are these tangible similarities that make an icon an icon? What are things that we must exclude?
Here are some 5th century icons from St Catherines monastery:
To my untrained eye these look like they don't have any characterisations and look like realistic; given the capability of the artists of the time.
We also live in an era where we can now take photographs of saints; should we exclude the veneration of saints depicted in photos? Should we have a different attitude to these? There is no precedence in tradition for photography simply because the technology didn't exist; you must recognise this in your appeals to tradition. Our aim is apostolic continuity not repetitive archaic antiquity - if something new comes which gives us the ability to enforce apostolic continuity - like this discussion based on historical research of Orthodox traditions of itself comes from developments in many scientific areas like carbon dating, archeology, modern historicity and so on.
In Churches in Egypt people venerate the smashed bones of martyrs and I recall this very gruesome story from judges:
Then all the sons of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, came out, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. The chiefs of all the people, {even} of all the tribes of Israel, took their stand in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers who drew the sword. (Now the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the sons of Israel said, "Tell {us,} how did this wickedness take place?" So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, "I came with my concubine to spend the night at Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin. "But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished my concubine so that she died. "And I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout the land of Israel's inheritance; for they have committed a lewd and disgraceful act in Israel. "Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here." Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house. "But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; {we will go up} against it by lot. "And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish {them} for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel." Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man. JD 20:1-11
If people engage in these kinds of emotional behaviours in why would Church iconography be different? Is it because of their affiliation with the liturgical life of the Church and the way the fathers have arranged the church to direct our thoughts and feelings as we participate in it?
I wholeheartedly accept that the Caravaggio picture is not an Orthodox icon or belongs on the walls of an Orthodox Church (he was a murderer after all) but I still believe that the message and symbolsim in it is spiritually beneficial if taken in the right way.
Perhaps its best that we note the difference between icons - which have a place in Orthodox liturgical life and things that reside outside of it.
[quote author=epiphania link=topic=10539.msg128512#msg128512 date=1296136288] and what about the pictures of St. Mina and St. George? has anyone seen pictures of them NOT naturalized?
Bp Kallistos is not from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Bp Kallistos is speaking from his own opinion and not the opinion as expressed by His Jurisdictional Synod.
Our personal opinions are cute, regardless of our title or affiliation, but they do not overturn that of the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regard to female priesthood.
What is a discipleship leader? I'm not familiar with that title.
The Fayyumic depiction on a mummy's sarcophagus relates to a personal choice of adornment at one's one burial place. It is an expression of art and wish, but it has no ecclesiastical implication.
There is a cemetary in NJ where a guy was entombed over his car (not a Coptic or Orthodox). That's just a nutty preference by one person. It does not extrapolate to the rest of mankind.
An icon is a window. It is made relative to prescribed methods and limitations of depiction.
I guess it would be cute to take those crayon images that the kids make in Sunday School and hang them around the church. They were made with innocent hearts and intent. How about we put modern paintings similar to Picasso and let each of us decide what is in it? I think I see St. Mark sitting next to a lion, no I think it Simon the Elder holding Christ....
The most famous Coptic icon of all is of St Mina, and it is a proper icon. And I have a proper icon of St George here as well. All naturalistic images are modern.
you know, paintings are getting even more modernized than that. The naturalized images of St. Mina and St. George are actually getting pretty old. have you seen the even newer things? like the one of Christ looking upon the earth? I have that one in my room. or holding the coptic church in his arms?
those are the ones I'm into. and those are the ones I will draw and paint. I enjoy being creative with the images. If you feel they're not iconic material, thats fine. but they're not going to disappear from our church.
My church does an all saints day thing instead of halloween, cuz thats not orthodox either, and I had to perpare a poster of it. Saints day, so of course, I'm going to put a lot of saints on it. I did the really big ones, St. George, St. Mina etc. but when I came to abu saifain (Philobateer marcorious) I couldn't find a non-coptic art one of him. I kinda free styled until I did find a naturalized one and I drew that.
Everyone seemed to like it. Or thats what they said to my face anyway. lol
The reason why that picture was placed was because "feel-good" people wanted to put a "feel-good" picture up. They want to visualize the Virgin Mother of God as a "Cute European Lady", as if it is optimized and elevated when it matches to the level of a fashion magazine like "Vogue", where the ultimate in beauty is shown. So we are searching for the ultimate magazine beauty as our devotional perception, rather than the iconography and soft theological expression.
Minagir, with his screen picture, has one of the nicest renderings of the Mother of God. I think it warms my heart to see such beauty. Beauty and art may be in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes it is out of focus and needs glasses to see better.
I made a crayon image of St. Mark when I was a kid. Should that be hung on the iconostasis? My mother still has that drawing. She adores it. Does that make my image suitable for you to bow and offer devotion?
Maybe, since you have artistic talent, take up an apprenticeship for iconography, and you may learn something, and actually become a help to the church rather than help subvert Its icons.
BTW, people will say that they liked something, but I ponder:
When a girl has an ugly dress on, what do her friends tell her: 'It looks nice.' When a girl is going with a dreaded guy, what do her friends tell her: 'Seems like a nice guy.' When my mom saw my crayon drawings, she said: 'It looks beautiful.'
The truth hurts, so we lie to make people feel happy.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128517#msg128517 date=1296136840] The most famous Coptic icon of all is of St Mina, and it is a proper icon. And I have a proper icon of St George here as well. All naturalistic images are modern.
What is your opinion of the icon's from St Catherines Monastery?
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=10539.msg128515#msg128515 date=1296136516] Bp Kallistos is not from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Bp Kallistos is speaking from his own opinion and not the opinion as expressed by His Jurisdictional Synod. Dear brother, you have really confused me. i quoted the point made by Bishop Kallistos because it was self-evident, appeals to tradition don't explain why we do something. There will always be a good reason and its even more enlightening to know what it is. To say to a person outside of the Church something like we don't ordain female priests because of tradition - very few people would accept that as a good reason. They would want to know why based on some logical appeal from reason, its not an unrealistic or wrong thing to want this.
I can't for the life of me think why you would want to down play and consign to personal opinion such an innocuous comment?
Our personal opinions are cute, regardless of our title or affiliation, but they do not overturn that of the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regard to female priesthood.
I agree, you must have me mistaken for someone who approves of females in the priesthood.
What is a discipleship leader? I'm not familiar with that title.
Its another name for servant preparation course leader, some churches call it discipleship
The Fayyumic depiction on a mummy's sarcophagus relates to a personal choice of adornment at one's one burial place. It is an expression of art and wish, but it has no ecclesiastical implication.
I included it as a comparison point for the icons from St Catherines, both are done in the same style which is natural. It was simply a discussion point I wasn't implying the burial rights or the images themselves had any relationship to Christianity.
There is a cemetary in NJ where a guy was entombed over his car (not a Coptic or Orthodox). That's just a nutty preference by one person. It does not extrapolate to the rest of mankind.
An icon is a window. It is made relative to prescribed methods and limitations of depiction.
Which are?
I guess it would be cute to take those crayon images that the kids make in Sunday School and hang them around the church. They were made with innocent hearts and intent. How about we put modern paintings similar to Picasso and let each of us decide what is in it? I think I see St. Mark sitting next to a lion, no I think it Simon the Elder holding Christ....
I don't understand your sarcasm here, why would we want to do any of this?
The few icons you mentioned in St Catherine's monastery have not produced any lasting influence in any Orthodox Church. This is the point. They were tried, and were essentially not reproduced. They are beautiful but that is not the point of iconography. They resemble too much the naturalistic portraits of Fayyum. Which also demolishes the argument that in the past iconographers could not produce art in a naturalistic style. Of course they could. But they chose not to.
The fact that there are a few ancient naturalistic icons shows that naturalism has not been endorsed. Indeed the fact that such icons have survived in a remote monastery rather than in a place where they were often seen also seems an important fact. Elsewhere such a style was not promoted at all.
I don't know if you have been to St Catherine's, but most of the icons are entirely traditional. Here is a gallery of some of them.
The fact that ONE is unusual surely does not give Copts carte blanche to venerate anything they have produced in Photoshop. And in the case of this one icon, it is hardly naturalistic. The face of Christ is split in two with one side showing signs of almost a stroke, emphasising his humanity, while the other is impassionate. The eyes are large. The blessing hand is large compared to the face. The hair is representational. It clearly has some connection with Egyptian death images, but the Church chose not to adopt such an iconography. Every other Pantocrator icon I have seen is clearly representational not naturalistic. And the other icons at St Catherine's are representational not naturalistic.
There are clear rules about iconography in the Orthodox Church. I don't have time to do all the research, but you could easily find out by reading any of the serious works about the theology of icons.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=10539.msg128521#msg128521 date=1296137673] Does that make my image suitable for you to bow and offer devotion?
ilovesaintmark, you know this more than I do: we do not venerate the material of the icons but rather that which they typify:
"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. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valour and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things." (St. John Climacus)
Also, no one answered my question: "what if it looks somewhat natural but still holds the symbolism of coptic icons and "tells the story"?"
It seems to me that sometimes we think of a coptic icon to just have straighter lines. Whereas the straighter lines is not what matters (as far as I know, but maybe that has a meaning to it as well).
Also, Fr. Peter, the icon of St. George that you posted, to me does not appear to be truly coptic because the devil is fairly big in proportion to everything else whereas in the coptic tradition is supposed to be very small.
Dear the_least, I have a feeling you're mixing things up to prove a point, don't mean to be rude but this is how I understood or misunderstood your post. Not venerating the icon material doesn't mean it can just be anything. We acknowledge martyrs and saints from other orthodox and even non-orthodox faiths but still we don't include them in our tasbeha or paint Coptic icons for them. Our church is Coptic: it should then have Coptic material; Coptic art in hymnody and icons, Coptic liturgies, Coptic monks and priests, and Coptic congregation. Now that doesn't mean that we're not tolerant to other orthodox denominations coming in, but where do they come in to? The Coptic church. Should we compromise? Should we give in? Well, I said enough, you can judge for yourself.... Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10539.msg128812#msg128812 date=1296294987] Dear the_least, I have a feeling you're mixing things up to prove a point, don't mean to be rude but this is how I understood or misunderstood your post. Not venerating the icon material doesn't mean it can just be anything. We acknowledge martyrs and saints from other orthodox and even non-orthodox faiths but still we don't include them in our tasbeha or paint Coptic icons for them. Our church is Coptic: it should then have Coptic material; Coptic art in hymnody and icons, Coptic liturgies, Coptic monks and priests, and Coptic congregation....
I will say very briefly that I am very disappointed with the attitude of some of the posters in this thread. I think its great that so many people are zealous for the faith but I think that there is more self-righteous zeal here than good answers and explanation of the Coptic and Orthodox attitude towards iconography.
We need to all remember that we're part of the service of services when we speak to people about the faith it is our duty is respond with with the movements of the Holy Spirit. To put it into the context of this tread - if our fathers chosen a style of iconography which was to remove naive human emotion to lead us from the earth to the Kingdom then we equally must remove the emotion when we contemplate how to respond in a wise way not out of human emotion or our limited knowledge but out of the great inner treasury of the Spirit which Christ has given us. The ability to answer is not about us but about the Spirit who in that hour gives us the words to speak.
Not every post which is in defence of the Church is something which will be merited with praise from Christ on the day of judgement and each of us takes on the responsibility of being a teacher, guide and sometimes defender we must do so realising the gravity of saying the wrong thing when we claim that we are defenders our tradition.
My personal feeling is that when we become self-reliant and call upon our own limited resources we make these mistakes and to cover over our own limitations we attack and criticise others. This is not a legitimate way to defend the Church, our confidence and trust in God must be greater than this - it is okay to not have an answer it gives us yet another reason to be humble before God and ask for His wisdom and guidance. When we accept this and go and search for the truth in Orthodox books then it shows God how keen we are to bring others to the truth and not just others but ourselves and these are endeavours that God will bless.
If we confess to God that our knowledge and skill is insufficient He will respond to such a prayer and there are so many verses in scripture which reinforce this.
I think that some of the posts have not been within the spirit of this thread - I needed to respond to state my own seriousness about the spiritual life, Orthodoxy and repentance - given that we're all undergoing a sojourn away from our selfish egos into the inner Jerusalem we need to have greater belief and trust in the Spirit which has guided us here to discuss the hidden matters of the Spirit in Truth.
I am not going to mention names but I do hope that we honestly search our actions and thoughts in a spirit of humbleness before God who alone is our judge.
I am an imperfect seeker of truth and I asked questions out of a sincere desire to be Orthodox in the errant way I know how and I feel that the nature of some the responses here are more likely to display self righteousness one side and turn others away on the other. We ought to respond to each other with love and affection not being overly quick to become critical of others if they don't immediately bend to our will.
I am accountable for my slowness to believe and I do hope that everyone here as my brothers and sisters prays for me.
I have done reading and I am quite convinced that I do understand why the Orthodox Tradition has evolved to be the way it is but I am also not convinced about the accuracy in a lot of the posts in this thread.
If in anything I have offended anyone I hope that you forgive and pray for me.
DEAR the_least, I'm not sure why you were so surprised, or maybe offended by my previous post when I mentioned Coptic congregation. I guess you took that to mean Egyptian excluding newcomers, which wasn't actually my definition. Coptic doesn't just refer to culture as you know, but to faith. do you see non-Copts attending your church. my answer is yes. do you call them newcomers to the faith? my answer in my experience no, not all of them. so better not to yield in to the views of others when they are not truly Copts. sorry the mobile is playing up... Oujai
Dear LifeinDeath, why is it self-righteous zeal to believe that one of the greatest threats of our time is the protestantisation of the Orthodox Church?
How is it self-righteous to place the Holy Tradition of the Church above our own likes and preferences? How is it self-righteous to believe that the teachings of the Church should be obeyed rather than the personal wishes of man?
I don't see any self-righteousness on this thread. Just a great sense that the Church stands on the edge of losing that which is most valuable and precious.
I dont really think its wrong to have the Italian-Catholic images at home, distributed at prayer meetings etc. However, shame on any church that uses them on their iconostasis or around their church.
However, in regards to having any non-Coptic icons at homes, we need to make sure that they are theologically or biblically correct.
For example, I recently purchased an Eastern Orthodox Icon, only to realize that Christ is holding up two fingers instead of one (symbolizing two separate natures, instead of one united nature). This is where the true dangers lie in my opinion. However, I think Coptic churches should use Coptic Iconography regardless. The Coptic culture should remain within its church. What people bring in to their own homes is up to them I would say, as long as they are aware of the meanings in the icon.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128903#msg128903 date=1296407936] Dear LifeinDeath, why is it self-righteous zeal to believe that one of the greatest threats of our time is the protestantisation of the Orthodox Church?
How is it self-righteous to place the Holy Tradition of the Church above our own likes and preferences? How is it self-righteous to believe that the teachings of the Church should be obeyed rather than the personal wishes of man?
I don't see any self-righteousness on this thread. Just a great sense that the Church stands on the edge of losing that which is most valuable and precious.
Father Peter
Beloved Father,
I agree with you wholeheartedly, may the traditions of our fathers stand - we ought to defend the Apostolic truth with every ounce of strength and every resource available to us.
I thought about this issue a lot and I took the Caravaggio down last night; I agree that the sentimentalism in it is definitely inappropriate and not consistent with Apostolic tradition.
The aim of the use of icons in Orthodoxy is to make the jump from the seen to the unseen as is consistent with all things related to worship and the liturgy. Sentimentalism is something which clearly something which hinders our ability to make this transition especially when it is saturated with earthly images and feelings which we use to kindle other impressions and ideas from out own earthly experience rather than granting us the ability to transcend these in exchange for a perception of the heavenly kingdom which can only be granted to us through faith.
I am very appreciative of this thread and I agree that a greater understanding of the use of icons in the Orthodox Church is required.
I wish to be clear that I never made any universal assertion that people who defend Apostolic tradition do so out of self-righteousness. I am not terribly happy with how I worded the beginning of my post it but I am certain that my intent is clear enough if you wish to take the time to re-read it.
I hope I don't sound too pedantic but I think its a nice common courtesy if we try to understand each other before we respond.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10539.msg128891#msg128891 date=1296376040] DEAR the_least, I'm not sure why you were so surprised, or maybe offended by my previous post when I mentioned Coptic congregation. I guess you took that to mean Egyptian excluding newcomers, which wasn't actually my definition. Coptic doesn't just refer to culture as you know, but to faith. do you see non-Copts attending your church. my answer is yes. do you call them newcomers to the faith? my answer in my experience no, not all of them. so better not to yield in to the views of others when they are not truly Copts. sorry the mobile is playing up... Oujai
but I wouldn't mind if an ethiopian orthodox fellow wanted to join our church
Comments
The iconostasis at St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church in East Brunswick in New Jersey (the main church) was manufactured by Eng. Magued Makramallah. It was not manufactured at a monastery.
The iconostasis is actually quite beautiful and quite Orthodox.
The paintings in the church were not carried out by a monk. They were painted by an independent artist, not a monk. He recently got married to be exact.
Fr. Bishoy (of blessed memory) was a seminarian.
Fr. Michael Tobia was a seminarian.
Fr. Marcos was a seminarian.
Fr. Mark was not a seminarian.
Fr. Kyrillos was not a seminarian.
The choice of that particular style for the paintings was a controversy that was waged in the Board of Deacons and members of the congregation. The paintings were adapted to "Orthodox" Content.
I am not going to comment on His Grace's views. It is not my place to offer comments on behalf of a bishop or a priest. I don't even exist. I'm an internet phenomenon.
Perhaps, for your own curiosity, and satisfying it, you may have one on one discussion with His Grace Bishop David and pose that particular question.
i guess i will stop responding to this thread -__-
The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
I don't think they did father Peter. We learned in class about the first exchange between the french and the egyptians in the 17th century. They were facinated with each other because everything about the other was just so utterly foriegn. You gotta understand, at that point the coptic church had been seperated from the western world for 1200 yrs. they had no idea what was happening anywhere other than in Egypt. and frankly, as those 1200 years include some of the most vicious persecutions in coptic history, I doubt they cared too much about what was happening to iconagraphy in the western world.
My dear spud--Copticuser,
The iconostasis at St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church in East Brunswick in New Jersey (the main church) was manufactured by Eng. Magued Makramallah. It was not manufactured at a monastery.
The iconostasis is actually quite beautiful and quite Orthodox.
The paintings in the church were not carried out by a monk. They were painted by an independent artist, not a monk. He recently got married to be exact.
Fr. Bishoy (of blessed memory) was a seminarian.
Fr. Michael Tobia was a seminarian.
Fr. Marcos was a seminarian.
Fr. Mark was not a seminarian.
Fr. Kyrillos was not a seminarian.
The choice of that particular style for the paintings was a controversy that was waged in the Board of Deacons and members of the congregation. The paintings were adapted to "Orthodox" Content.
I am not going to comment on His Grace's views. It is not my place to offer comments on behalf of a bishop or a priest. I don't even exist. I'm an internet phenomenon.
Perhaps, for your own curiosity, and satisfying it, you may have one on one discussion with His Grace Bishop David and pose that particular question.
Ok I'm convinced that you are either married to the physical manifestation of Google.... or you're a figment of our imagination!
Lol! Rublev's icon is not naturalistic at all. The proportions of the angels are all elongated. Their features are stylised. They are not the representations of real people sitting in a studio. The fact that Greek and Egyptian styles of iconography differ does not matter. What matters is the theology and practice of iconography which is the same. And what matters is being obedient to the Tradition of the Church not constantly deciding for ourselves what we prefer. That attitude is entirely Protestant. What we like and what we prefer has no bearing on the Church, we must receive the Tradition, seek to understand the Tradition, and pass on the Tradition.
Thank you for pointing out the differences, I didn't notice that it was somewhat characterised. I have no problem with your appeal to tradition; I am the discipleship leader in my Church and a faithful Orthodox Christian for some time. My confession Father is aware of my devotional practices; I have done nothing under a rock, out of self will or disobedience.
I try to do all I do in good conscience before God, I visit my father of confession on a regular basis and I do my best to make him aware of everything that I do.
H.G. Bishop Kallistos said on the different topic of females in the priesthood. It is all fair and well to appeal to tradition but you have to realise that not all people in this era of sexual revolution will not find the idea of such an appeal convincing; I am also absolutely entitled as a faithful Christian to ask questions so long as I do not err in stubbornness, self-will or any rejection of sacred things. I believe in an era where art is more diverse and we have so many more visual mediums there is merit in asking these questions.
To say that Greek and Coptic iconographic styles are different but it doesn't matter doesn't feel like a good explanation and I would like to be satisfied. There are differences in like in the case of jurisdictional liturgical traditions for example there will be many points of difference in length, language, music, arrangement of the Church, implements of the altar but we have a good understanding of what must be held in common such as Eucharistic prayers, facing towards the east and so on.
In the case of iconography what are these tangible similarities that make an icon an icon? What are things that we must exclude?
Here are some 5th century icons from St Catherines monastery:
To my untrained eye these look like they don't have any characterisations and look like realistic; given the capability of the artists of the time.
An example of other realistic artwork from the period are the Fayoum portraits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_portraits
I was doing some scouting around and I think that this kind of characterised art is something which comes from Jewish traditions of the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_Synagogue
We also live in an era where we can now take photographs of saints; should we exclude the veneration of saints depicted in photos? Should we have a different attitude to these? There is no precedence in tradition for photography simply because the technology didn't exist; you must recognise this in your appeals to tradition. Our aim is apostolic continuity not repetitive archaic antiquity - if something new comes which gives us the ability to enforce apostolic continuity - like this discussion based on historical research of Orthodox traditions of itself comes from developments in many scientific areas like carbon dating, archeology, modern historicity and so on.
In Churches in Egypt people venerate the smashed bones of martyrs and I recall this very gruesome story from judges:
Then all the sons of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, came out, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah.
The chiefs of all the people, {even} of all the tribes of Israel, took their stand in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers who drew the sword.
(Now the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the sons of Israel said, "Tell {us,} how did this wickedness take place?"
So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, "I came with my concubine to spend the night at Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin.
"But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished my concubine so that she died.
"And I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout the land of Israel's inheritance; for they have committed a lewd and disgraceful act in Israel.
"Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here."
Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house.
"But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; {we will go up} against it by lot.
"And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish {them} for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel."
Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man.
JD 20:1-11
If people engage in these kinds of emotional behaviours in why would Church iconography be different? Is it because of their affiliation with the liturgical life of the Church and the way the fathers have arranged the church to direct our thoughts and feelings as we participate in it?
I wholeheartedly accept that the Caravaggio picture is not an Orthodox icon or belongs on the walls of an Orthodox Church (he was a murderer after all) but I still believe that the message and symbolsim in it is spiritually beneficial if taken in the right way.
Perhaps its best that we note the difference between icons - which have a place in Orthodox liturgical life and things that reside outside of it.
God bless,
LiD
sorry, i don't mean to make a problem of it..
but if naturalistic Pictures don't fit in the coptic orthodox church, then what about pictures of
e.g. apparitions of Virgin Mary, like this one: http://st-takla.org/Gallery/02-El-3adra-Maryam-pictures/13-Apparitions-of-Our-Lady-St-Mary/www-St-Takla-org__Saint-Mary_Apparitions-4-Other-03.html ??
I guess there aren't any Icons of this picture. And I think it's a important picture..it's shows her appearance.
Gb and ppfm.
and what about the pictures of St. Mina and St. George? has anyone seen pictures of them NOT naturalized?
Hi, yes there are:
saint Mina:
Our personal opinions are cute, regardless of our title or affiliation, but they do not overturn that of the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regard to female priesthood.
What is a discipleship leader? I'm not familiar with that title.
The Fayyumic depiction on a mummy's sarcophagus relates to a personal choice of adornment at one's one burial place. It is an expression of art and wish, but it has no ecclesiastical implication.
There is a cemetary in NJ where a guy was entombed over his car (not a Coptic or Orthodox). That's just a nutty preference by one person. It does not extrapolate to the rest of mankind.
An icon is a window. It is made relative to prescribed methods and limitations of depiction.
I guess it would be cute to take those crayon images that the kids make in Sunday School and hang them around the church. They were made with innocent hearts and intent. How about we put modern paintings similar to Picasso and let each of us decide what is in it? I think I see St. Mark sitting next to a lion, no I think it Simon the Elder holding Christ....
those are the ones I'm into. and those are the ones I will draw and paint. I enjoy being creative with the images. If you feel they're not iconic material, thats fine. but they're not going to disappear from our church.
My church does an all saints day thing instead of halloween, cuz thats not orthodox either, and I had to perpare a poster of it. Saints day, so of course, I'm going to put a lot of saints on it. I did the really big ones, St. George, St. Mina etc. but when I came to abu saifain (Philobateer marcorious) I couldn't find a non-coptic art one of him. I kinda free styled until I did find a naturalized one and I drew that.
Everyone seemed to like it. Or thats what they said to my face anyway. lol
The reason why that picture was placed was because "feel-good" people wanted to put a "feel-good" picture up. They want to visualize the Virgin Mother of God as a "Cute European Lady", as if it is optimized and elevated when it matches to the level of a fashion magazine like "Vogue", where the ultimate in beauty is shown. So we are searching for the ultimate magazine beauty as our devotional perception, rather than the iconography and soft theological expression.
Minagir, with his screen picture, has one of the nicest renderings of the Mother of God. I think it warms my heart to see such beauty. Beauty and art may be in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes it is out of focus and needs glasses to see better.
I made a crayon image of St. Mark when I was a kid. Should that be hung on the iconostasis? My mother still has that drawing. She adores it. Does that make my image suitable for you to bow and offer devotion?
Maybe, since you have artistic talent, take up an apprenticeship for iconography, and you may learn something, and actually become a help to the church rather than help subvert Its icons.
When a girl has an ugly dress on, what do her friends tell her: 'It looks nice.'
When a girl is going with a dreaded guy, what do her friends tell her: 'Seems like a nice guy.'
When my mom saw my crayon drawings, she said: 'It looks beautiful.'
The truth hurts, so we lie to make people feel happy.
The most famous Coptic icon of all is of St Mina, and it is a proper icon. And I have a proper icon of St George here as well. All naturalistic images are modern.
What is your opinion of the icon's from St Catherines Monastery?
Here is St Mina..
and here is St George...
This is how they should be presented.
Here are a great many other proper Coptic icons...
http://ukcopticicons.com/#/gallery/4533830781
Here are icons from the 18th century in Egypt showing no naturalism...
http://www.firstimageicons.com/Ancient_Coptic_icon_Gallery_1.html
and here are more modern Coptic icons..
http://www.firstimageicons.com/Neo-Coptic_Icon_Gallery_1.html
There is no lack of ability and gift in the Church. There is no reason to accept a counterfeit.
Father Peter
Bp Kallistos is not from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Bp Kallistos is speaking from his own opinion and not the opinion as expressed by His Jurisdictional Synod.
Dear brother, you have really confused me. i quoted the point made by Bishop Kallistos because it was self-evident, appeals to tradition don't explain why we do something. There will always be a good reason and its even more enlightening to know what it is. To say to a person outside of the Church something like we don't ordain female priests because of tradition - very few people would accept that as a good reason. They would want to know why based on some logical appeal from reason, its not an unrealistic or wrong thing to want this.
I can't for the life of me think why you would want to down play and consign to personal opinion such an innocuous comment? I agree, you must have me mistaken for someone who approves of females in the priesthood. Its another name for servant preparation course leader, some churches call it discipleship I included it as a comparison point for the icons from St Catherines, both are done in the same style which is natural. It was simply a discussion point I wasn't implying the burial rights or the images themselves had any relationship to Christianity. Which are? I don't understand your sarcasm here, why would we want to do any of this?
The fact that there are a few ancient naturalistic icons shows that naturalism has not been endorsed. Indeed the fact that such icons have survived in a remote monastery rather than in a place where they were often seen also seems an important fact. Elsewhere such a style was not promoted at all.
I don't know if you have been to St Catherine's, but most of the icons are entirely traditional. Here is a gallery of some of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine%27s_Monastery,_Mount_Sinai
The fact that ONE is unusual surely does not give Copts carte blanche to venerate anything they have produced in Photoshop. And in the case of this one icon, it is hardly naturalistic. The face of Christ is split in two with one side showing signs of almost a stroke, emphasising his humanity, while the other is impassionate. The eyes are large. The blessing hand is large compared to the face. The hair is representational. It clearly has some connection with Egyptian death images, but the Church chose not to adopt such an iconography. Every other Pantocrator icon I have seen is clearly representational not naturalistic. And the other icons at St Catherine's are representational not naturalistic.
There are clear rules about iconography in the Orthodox Church. I don't have time to do all the research, but you could easily find out by reading any of the serious works about the theology of icons.
Here are a few possible books.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Icon-Theology-Beauty/dp/0961854545/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296140138&sr=8-1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Icon-Set-Leonid-Ouspensky/dp/0881411248/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296140138&sr=8-2
and
http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Icons-Vladimir-Lossky/dp/0913836990/ref=pd_sim_b_1
There are many others.
Father Peter
I have neglected to read up formally on this topic myself but I recall a friend sent me this Coptic book on the subject:
http://www.ukmidcopts.org/kotob/SPIRITUALITY OF ICONS.pdf
Looks like I have some reading to do. :)
God bless you,
LiD
Does that make my image suitable for you to bow and offer devotion?
ilovesaintmark, you know this more than I do: we do not venerate the material of the icons but rather that which they typify:
"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. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valour and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things." (St. John Climacus)
Also, no one answered my question: "what if it looks somewhat natural but still holds the symbolism of coptic icons and "tells the story"?"
It seems to me that sometimes we think of a coptic icon to just have straighter lines. Whereas the straighter lines is not what matters (as far as I know, but maybe that has a meaning to it as well).
Also, Fr. Peter, the icon of St. George that you posted, to me does not appear to be truly coptic because the devil is fairly big in proportion to everything else whereas in the coptic tradition is supposed to be very small.
I have a feeling you're mixing things up to prove a point, don't mean to be rude but this is how I understood or misunderstood your post. Not venerating the icon material doesn't mean it can just be anything. We acknowledge martyrs and saints from other orthodox and even non-orthodox faiths but still we don't include them in our tasbeha or paint Coptic icons for them. Our church is Coptic: it should then have Coptic material; Coptic art in hymnody and icons, Coptic liturgies, Coptic monks and priests, and Coptic congregation. Now that doesn't mean that we're not tolerant to other orthodox denominations coming in, but where do they come in to? The Coptic church. Should we compromise? Should we give in? Well, I said enough, you can judge for yourself....
Oujai
Dear the_least,
I have a feeling you're mixing things up to prove a point, don't mean to be rude but this is how I understood or misunderstood your post. Not venerating the icon material doesn't mean it can just be anything. We acknowledge martyrs and saints from other orthodox and even non-orthodox faiths but still we don't include them in our tasbeha or paint Coptic icons for them. Our church is Coptic: it should then have Coptic material; Coptic art in hymnody and icons, Coptic liturgies, Coptic monks and priests, and Coptic congregation....
whoa whoa whoa .... what??? COPTIC CONGREGATION???
We need to all remember that we're part of the service of services when we speak to people about the faith it is our duty is respond with with the movements of the Holy Spirit. To put it into the context of this tread - if our fathers chosen a style of iconography which was to remove naive human emotion to lead us from the earth to the Kingdom then we equally must remove the emotion when we contemplate how to respond in a wise way not out of human emotion or our limited knowledge but out of the great inner treasury of the Spirit which Christ has given us. The ability to answer is not about us but about the Spirit who in that hour gives us the words to speak.
Not every post which is in defence of the Church is something which will be merited with praise from Christ on the day of judgement and each of us takes on the responsibility of being a teacher, guide and sometimes defender we must do so realising the gravity of saying the wrong thing when we claim that we are defenders our tradition.
My personal feeling is that when we become self-reliant and call upon our own limited resources we make these mistakes and to cover over our own limitations we attack and criticise others. This is not a legitimate way to defend the Church, our confidence and trust in God must be greater than this - it is okay to not have an answer it gives us yet another reason to be humble before God and ask for His wisdom and guidance. When we accept this and go and search for the truth in Orthodox books then it shows God how keen we are to bring others to the truth and not just others but ourselves and these are endeavours that God will bless.
If we confess to God that our knowledge and skill is insufficient He will respond to such a prayer and there are so many verses in scripture which reinforce this.
I think that some of the posts have not been within the spirit of this thread - I needed to respond to state my own seriousness about the spiritual life, Orthodoxy and repentance - given that we're all undergoing a sojourn away from our selfish egos into the inner Jerusalem we need to have greater belief and trust in the Spirit which has guided us here to discuss the hidden matters of the Spirit in Truth.
I am not going to mention names but I do hope that we honestly search our actions and thoughts in a spirit of humbleness before God who alone is our judge.
I am an imperfect seeker of truth and I asked questions out of a sincere desire to be Orthodox in the errant way I know how and I feel that the nature of some the responses here are more likely to display self righteousness one side and turn others away on the other. We ought to respond to each other with love and affection not being overly quick to become critical of others if they don't immediately bend to our will.
I am accountable for my slowness to believe and I do hope that everyone here as my brothers and sisters prays for me.
I have done reading and I am quite convinced that I do understand why the Orthodox Tradition has evolved to be the way it is but I am also not convinced about the accuracy in a lot of the posts in this thread.
If in anything I have offended anyone I hope that you forgive and pray for me.
Your brother in Chirst,
LiD
I'm not sure why you were so surprised, or maybe offended by my previous post when I mentioned Coptic congregation. I guess you took that to mean Egyptian excluding newcomers, which wasn't actually my definition. Coptic doesn't just refer to culture as you know, but to faith. do you see non-Copts attending your church. my answer is yes. do you call them newcomers to the faith? my answer in my experience no, not all of them. so better not to yield in to the views of others when they are not truly Copts. sorry the mobile is playing up...
Oujai
How is it self-righteous to place the Holy Tradition of the Church above our own likes and preferences? How is it self-righteous to believe that the teachings of the Church should be obeyed rather than the personal wishes of man?
I don't see any self-righteousness on this thread. Just a great sense that the Church stands on the edge of losing that which is most valuable and precious.
Father Peter
However, in regards to having any non-Coptic icons at homes, we need to make sure that they are theologically or biblically correct.
For example, I recently purchased an Eastern Orthodox Icon, only to realize that Christ is holding up two fingers instead of one (symbolizing two separate natures, instead of one united nature). This is where the true dangers lie in my opinion. However, I think Coptic churches should use Coptic Iconography regardless. The Coptic culture should remain within its church. What people bring in to their own homes is up to them I would say, as long as they are aware of the meanings in the icon.
PK
Dear LifeinDeath, why is it self-righteous zeal to believe that one of the greatest threats of our time is the protestantisation of the Orthodox Church?
How is it self-righteous to place the Holy Tradition of the Church above our own likes and preferences? How is it self-righteous to believe that the teachings of the Church should be obeyed rather than the personal wishes of man?
I don't see any self-righteousness on this thread. Just a great sense that the Church stands on the edge of losing that which is most valuable and precious.
Father Peter
Beloved Father,
I agree with you wholeheartedly, may the traditions of our fathers stand - we ought to defend the Apostolic truth with every ounce of strength and every resource available to us.
I thought about this issue a lot and I took the Caravaggio down last night; I agree that the sentimentalism in it is definitely inappropriate and not consistent with Apostolic tradition.
The aim of the use of icons in Orthodoxy is to make the jump from the seen to the unseen as is consistent with all things related to worship and the liturgy. Sentimentalism is something which clearly something which hinders our ability to make this transition especially when it is saturated with earthly images and feelings which we use to kindle other impressions and ideas from out own earthly experience rather than granting us the ability to transcend these in exchange for a perception of the heavenly kingdom which can only be granted to us through faith.
I am very appreciative of this thread and I agree that a greater understanding of the use of icons in the Orthodox Church is required.
I wish to be clear that I never made any universal assertion that people who defend Apostolic tradition do so out of self-righteousness. I am not terribly happy with how I worded the beginning of my post it but I am certain that my intent is clear enough if you wish to take the time to re-read it.
I hope I don't sound too pedantic but I think its a nice common courtesy if we try to understand each other before we respond.
God bless your service,
LiD
DEAR the_least,
I'm not sure why you were so surprised, or maybe offended by my previous post when I mentioned Coptic congregation. I guess you took that to mean Egyptian excluding newcomers, which wasn't actually my definition. Coptic doesn't just refer to culture as you know, but to faith. do you see non-Copts attending your church. my answer is yes. do you call them newcomers to the faith? my answer in my experience no, not all of them. so better not to yield in to the views of others when they are not truly Copts. sorry the mobile is playing up...
Oujai
but I wouldn't mind if an ethiopian orthodox fellow wanted to join our church