C^BA ICYCY XPUCTY! Michael, No more disturbing than when we (Greco Catholics) exposed the living Christ in a monstrance above the plachanytcha grave of the dead Christ?
Here is a video from St. Stanislaus Church that someone had posted on the unveiling Mass.
I had watched it live on EWTN and had some very mixed feelings about it. I find it beautiful and disturbing at the same time.
What is interesting to me is that it is a very Eastern depiction of the Virgin (Theotokos) wearing red mantle, rather than the Roman Catholic baby blue she is usually shown wearing. It is indeed modeled after Our Lady of the Sign. Here she is also shown emerging out of the Ark of the Covenant and is the vessel of the New Covenant, which is further emphasized when the rather large Eucharistic wafer is placed over the golden image of the baby Jesus over her womb. So She is seen here as the link between the Old and New Covenant. Theotokos of the Sign normally has her arms raised but here her arms are gesturing downward as in most Western versions. The moon is an addition to this particular icon style. It is mostly seen in Western depictions of Mary, as are the 12 stars (apostles) above her head. The statue is an interesting blend Eastern and Western imagery. There are many theories about the moon's meaning, from its association with Venus, thus she tramples on paganism, to a symbol of the Islamic faith, and so is seen as if squashing the crescent of Islam.
Art History lesson aside, as a sacred Christian image/monstrance, I personally find it a bit disturbing. As Christians, especially Eastern, there is a constant defending of the role sacred imagery in our worship. With sacred icons, we look toward the image as a window to God or the Saints and do not worship the image itself. In Eucharistic adoration, we do adore and worship the Body of Christ in the appearance of bread, because it is by our faith that this IS the actual Body of Christ. So I feel it is conflicting to have both icon and Eucharist present in one sacred object. As a monstrance, I feel it defeats the purpose as my attention is drawn more toward her beauty, rather than to the Eucharist. We do not want to worship the wood she is constructed out of, but it is right to adore the Eucharist that is present in the statue. I feel the image will confuse the focus of the faithful...
Just wanted to add my feelings to this discussion...
As Christians, especially Eastern, there is a constant defending of the role sacred imagery in our worship. With sacred icons, we look toward the image as a window to God or the Saints and do not worship the image itself. In Eucharistic adoration, we do adore and worship the Body of Christ in the appearance of bread, because it is by our faith that this IS the actual Body of Christ.
Within the perspective of Western theology, at least as interpreted by Aquinas, all the instances mentioned -- Christ, the Eucharist, His sacred image -- are given the worship of latria, even though His personal presence in each instance is distinct. Thus, St. Thomas on "Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?":
Quote
Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as saying: "The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype," i.e. the exemplar. But the exemplar itself--namely, Christ--is to be adored with the adoration of 'latria'; therefore also His image.
Thank you for that quote. Is "latria" reserved only for the Father, and Him through him via the human incarnation of Christ His Son, His sacred image, the Eucharist... is this extended to the Virgin and other Saints as well?
I guess I assumed that the Eucharist would have more sacred value than the statue of Mary and both would be venerated in a different manner if separated. The Eucharist in this case has been consecrated and transformed. But does the statue of Mary have the same sacred value in this case?
Is "latria" reserved only for the Father, and Him through him via the human incarnation of Christ His Son, His sacred image, the Eucharist... is this extended to the Virgin and other Saints as well?
Again, from the western "authority," Aquinas, "Whether dulia is a special virtue distinct from latria?":
Quote
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x), that "the homage due to man, of which the Apostle spoke when he commanded servants to obey their masters and which in Greek is called dulia, is distinct from latria which denotes the homage that consists in the worship of God."
Thanks to all of you for the education. I found it a bit perplexing when I first saw it. I can understand in a way why the West - emotionaly that is - made such a monstrance.
I guess the Protestant part of me - even though it is almost 30 years past - still takes a step back and says woooh.
I happened to catch part of a show on last night on EWTN called "Sacred Craft" which looked interesting and timely. The father giving the lecture is a Dominican with dual faculty status and is able to serve in both Latin and Eastern Rites.
I have a feeling that this might have been scheduled because of questions EWTN viewers have had about the Iconic Monstrance, perhaps as a way to explain the "iconic" part of it? Or could be just coincidence EWTN doesn't air too many shows relating to the Eastern Rite so its interesting that this is being aired now.
It airs again on June 12th at 1pm Eastern, 10 Pacific.
Synopsis: Fr. Brendan McAnerny explores the theology of icons in this engaging study of Eastern Church Iconography, examining the distinct traits of this ancient and unique art.
Perhaps because I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I don't see a cause for all the previous negative remarks. Seems to be a blend of Eastern and Western - Our Lady of the Sign and Ostrobramskaya, Mother of God, in a Western medium perspective. I don't think we can expect to see a Western iconic image portrayed in a strictly Eastern fashion - afterall there are many icon varieties among the Eastern churches too. Western churches can have their own icons also. I don't think this should be judged in comparison to Eastern icons.
I think it is quite beautiful and proper for the Roman Church. And, I agree in assuming the intent was made to portray the "Mother of Divine Mercy".
I happened to catch part of a show on last night on EWTN called "Sacred Craft" which looked interesting and timely. The father giving the lecture is a Dominican with dual faculty status and is able to serve in both Latin and Eastern Rites.
I believe Father Breandan is now formally incardinated to the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites. He serves at our parish in Sacramento, as I recollect. I think it should be made clear that Father has no connection to the monstrance that I can discern - he is an iconographer and teaches on the subject.
Many years,
Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Perhaps because I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I don't see a cause for all the previous negative remarks. Seems to be a blend of Eastern and Western - Our Lady of the Sign and Ostrobramskaya, Mother of God, in a Western medium perspective. I don't think we can expect to see a Western iconic image portrayed in a strictly Eastern fashion - afterall there are many icon varieties among the Eastern churches too. Western churches can have their own icons also. I don't think this should be judged in comparison to Eastern icons.
I think it is quite beautiful and proper for the Roman Church. And, I agree in assuming the intent was made to portray the "Mother of Divine Mercy".
I believe Father Breandan is now formally incardinated to the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites. He serves at our parish in Sacramento, as I recollect. I think it should be made clear that Father has no connection to the monstrance that I can discern - he is an iconographer and teaches on the subject.
Dear Neil and all,
I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. My intent was to point out that the airing of Fr. Brendan's presentation on "Sacred Craft: An Introduction to the Art & Spirituality of Holy Icons" seemed very timely as I am sure there are many Roman Catholic viewers of EWTN, who may not have had any exposure to Holy Icons, who might be curious about the obvious Eastern influence on the Iconic Monstrance. I realise he has no connection to the Iconic Monstrance, but his presentation was wonderful and thorough and I believe helpful to the Roman Catholics who are now curious about "icons" because of the Iconic Monstrance.
do check out the show when it airs again tomorrow!
Somewhere I recently read that a special Host 12 inches in diameter had to be consecrated for this monstrance.
My own questions revolve around the ongoing use of this monstrance since the Host will have to be replaced periodically. Such large Hosts usually present problems in handling them so as to prevent the loss of any particles.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights
reserved.
