The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 140
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 140
If I learned that my "priest believe[d] that the Eucharist is merely the symbol of our inherent divinity," it would bother me a great deal, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent me from receiving the Eucharist from him. It is not his personal faith that consecrates the Eucharist, but the action of the Holy Spirit through him.

In like manner, I would not avoid "Monastery Icons" because they are produced by heretics. I would, however, suggest two completely different reasons for avoiding these things: 1)purchasing them may profit an organization that would thereby deceive more souls and 2) they are hideous.

On another matter, if a church or an individual had a number of these things that have been blessed, what would be the proper manner of disposing of them, should they wish to do so?

Last edited by JohnRussell; 03/30/09 01:05 AM.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
While your reasons for avoiding MIs are valid, it is also true that if the priest does not intend what the Church intends it can nullify the sacrament (I speak a now Byzantine Catholic who was trained in the Western theological tradition; I don't know what the Eastern view is).

If blessed, and sanctified by the devotion of the people, there would be no reason to dispose of them. But if they (understandably, upon learning more about the makers) wanted to the proper means of disposal would be burning.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
The priest need not necessarily "intend what the Church intends"; he must, however, intend to do what the Church does.

In the case of the Hindus painting "icons", the question seriously arises of whether the painters intend to do what the Christians do, or intend to deceive the Christians. Considering both Hinduism itself and several aspects of the "icons", I fear the intent is to deceive the Christians.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Yes, thank you Father Serge for your more precise- and correct- wording.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Fr. Serge, Bless.

A follow up question:

Since our Eastern Liturgies are our primary means of educating (feeding, teaching, preaching, healing) the faithful, is anything connected with that also an off-limits area for non-Christians to produce items?

I know of a construction guy who was hired by several churches in the US because he came from an area of South India that was majority Christian - he's worked with Christians before, he knows our "setup" and he's even built the sanctuaries of various parishes - but he's a practicing Hindu.

I know from first-hand experience that in India Hindus are hired, under the supervision of Christians, to produce liturgical fans, vestments, altar cloths, metal crosses, statues, and to print the Lectionary and even the Books of the Liturgy.

I'm not sure that this is a problem, since all these items will be blessed and "baptized" if you will...

(This discussion goes beyond 'Monastery Icons', which is something I personally avoid, mainly since they are nefariously vague and untruthful about themselves)

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
The Blessing of the Lord!

Well, consider the example of non-Christians working in a publishing house which produces books for specifically Christian use. One would expect that either the Bishop or his delegate carefully reviews the proofs of such books before allowing the final printing - and if anything inappropriate has been slipped in, there are things which can be done about it.

The issue with "Monastery Icons" is largely that of truthfulness, along with a well-founded suspicion that they are trying to lead Christians to worship strange gods.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Yes, and while it would be preferable that the Christian community build everything designed for divine worship, there is, I think, a distinction between making a building for worship, say, or printing books, or whatever, and painting an icon. All other things are mere matter until consecrated for worship, but an icon is sanctified by the prototype; it is -or should be- holy in every stage of its creation. So it can only be painted by a believer, and a lover, of Christ.

Chtec #317154 03/31/09 10:44 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Chtec
As an aside, the festal icon set from HTM is not their work. The icons are by Lepouras, I believe.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Yes, I was aware of this. Years ago I had correspondence with HTM and they were always forthright and truthful with any inquiries I made. The signature,("From the hand of"), of the iconographer can be found in Greek along with the date on the festal icons.

Bill

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by iconophile
Yes, and while it would be preferable that the Christian community build everything designed for divine worship, there is, I think, a distinction between making a building for worship, say, or printing books, or whatever, and painting an icon. All other things are mere matter until consecrated for worship, but an icon is sanctified by the prototype; it is -or should be- holy in every stage of its creation. So it can only be painted by a believer, and a lover, of Christ.

Iconophile,

Your post above pretty much sums up what I meant by "plagiarism". From their earliest beginnings as Holy Protection Monastery in Nebraska there has always been a giant ? to go along with Monastery Icons and their beliefs and affiliations.

It's been a few years now but even Light and Life Publishing's catalog came replete with Monastery Icons. They had, and still have, lots of people duped.

Bill

rcguest #317189 04/01/09 01:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
No, what I said has nothing to do with plagiarism. Iconographers commonly use prototypes, or if they "create" their own use predetermined characteristics. Many iconographers use the exact same prototype and no one complains who understands the principles correctly.
As an aside, you can have a whole class using the same pattern and colors, and no two icons will look the same. While one does not seek individual expression, each icon will reflect the person in his or her level of talent, their prayerfulness and their personality.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Iconophile,

I understand what you are saying here and I realize my use of the word "plagiarism" doesn't fit. I conveyed that in my original post. You are interpreting what I am trying to say technically. So, to make things as simple as I can, I think "Abbot" George Burke used the familiar, the icons of HTM, to make a buck.

His brand of "Orthodoxy" never jibed with real Christian "Orthodoxy", Byzantine or Oriental. He could have used any icons, but in the beginning HTM's were familiar to him. So he used them.

I also don't believe Abbot George was or is the iconographer. There were photos of a "Brother Simeon" in their catalogs who was shown painting icons. Brother Simeon's intent may have not been the same as George Burke's but I do remember seeing a picture of Brother Simeon dressed in a sari, along with the rest of the "monastery", worshipping in front of a Hindu statue somehere on the internet.

God Bless,
Bill

rcguest #317624 04/04/09 02:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Bill,

If this Simeon fellow were in a sari, that would make this all the more strange, as saris are women's clothing..

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
"If this Simeon fellow were in a sari, that would make this all the more strange, as saris are women's clothing.."

Yes, of course. smile He was wearing whatever it is called a Hindu man might wear that resembles the garment in this picture:

http://4dalove.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/lastdaysashram118.jpg

Though that picture is not of Simeon.

rcguest #317762 04/05/09 06:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,150
Likes: 65
I think this thread has about run its course. If there is nothing new to add to this discussion, I'll close it. I think the general understanding is that this is not a source of Christian art or liturgical items.

BOB
Moderator

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by iconophile
No, what I said has nothing to do with plagiarism. Iconographers commonly use prototypes, or if they "create" their own use predetermined characteristics. Many iconographers use the exact same prototype and no one complains who understands the principles correctly.
You are right that a true iconographer is not plagiarizing when he writes an icon according to the rubrics established by the Church's iconographical tradition, because the production of a true icon is an ecclesial act; but a non-Christian who is merely copying an icon in order to make money, or in order to deceptively promote idolatry, is in a sense plagiarizing, because his work is not an ecclesial act.

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
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.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5