www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Holy Can-Can

Dear Adam,

Could you post info on how to order it for those who are interested in getting it here?

Alex

Irish Melkite,

As you addressed a comment to me (et al) a couple of pages back, concerning my use of "judgment" in my comments on Mr. Lentz's "iconography"....No, I can only add that there is a difference sir, between judgment, and discernment.

The church having him speak is apparently either incapable of such, or has not read his words which accompany his iconography. Nor, apparently, have you.

It is one thing to decide your worship tradition wishes to go all fuzzy and "canonize" St. Coltrane. That is their issue, and one that doesn't concern me. I have issues, however, when this obviously agendized insult to theology portrays serious saints of my Church as homosexuals, paints icons of Christ naked with horns, and declares in his written descriptions that this is more relevant theology.

This, sir, is not being judgmental re: the aforesaid Episcopelians, but discerning that slanders upon the saints of out Church are.... wrong , and deserving of denunciation !!!

Where, sir, did you get the idea that such abuses could be tolerated because the man portraying Sts. Jonathan and David, Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, St. Brigid of Kildare, CHRIST HIMSELF (as a WOMAN!!!!!) in such a BLASPHEMOUS MANNERcannot be DENOUNCED because he is not of our tradition????? HERESY, SIR, IS HERESY!

Go to Bridge Building Icons. Look up and READ what he says about those saints. Read also his "Lord of the Dance" and "Christ Sophia".

Please READ what he says before you call me "judgmental". If you still think I ought not to call the man blasphemous, after reading how he describes these Holy Saints of OUR Church, SIR, (Not any individual he decided to canonize yesterday in his OWN denomination)....I will then accept with humility the label "judgmental", and beg the forgiveness of the board.

I ask likewise that anyone who feels I have spoken too strongly concerning Mr. Lentz READ what he says about our saints as above. THIS is the theology that he is sending forth to the world. Then please post your responses to mine. I will gladly hear them.

Gaudior, in defense of the Faith

Gaudior,

Your original post

appeared to me to speak to the Episcopalians' choice of images to portray, not to their choice of Lentz as an iconographer (btw, Lentz is not the sole iconographer involved with the mural as I recollect the site). To the extent that your concern is with Lentz' words and work outside that portrayed at St Gregory's, I withdraw my comments. As to the right of the Episcopalians to "canonize" whomever they deem worthy of such, I stand by what I have said.

Their interpretation of Saints Sergius and Bacchus is not a new one, contrary as it may be to what you, I, and other Eastern Christians may believe. Regarding that, I would posit that no saints are "mine" or "yours", all are available to all. This concept of a Church "owning" a saint allows us to venerate those we choose to venerate, though our brothers and sisters of another Church may not choose to do so; however, it also leads to narrow interpretations of who is entitled to venerate and how; I'm not convinced that the second is justified by the first (and if that doesn't make sense, I'll reconsider it after some sleep, of which I've been deprived for close to 36 hours.)

Many years,

Neil

Pardon, Neil, my word "these" referred to the others of Lentz's "school".

As to WHO may venerate, no, of course God's saints are His gifts to the faithful, and all may do so. But to decide that one may venerate by claiming those saints as something sinful, in order to be comfy with one's own agenda, no, that needs to be spoken against.

I am well aware that Mr. Lentz is not the ONLY person to make those comments about Sts. Sergios and Bacchus, but if one looks at his whole "body" of work, it is a recurring theme of his...to take what is wonderful and miraculous, and twist it...in the name of "iconography".
This is a quote form the "Lord of the Dance" "icon" which presents Christ naked, with horns. (oh, and a halo):

Yes, please...anyone who wishes to venerate our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may do so. But WITH REVERENCE... This...the creation of these images...is blasphemous. If Christendom nearly split over the iconoclasm controversy...how much more so had they seen THIS?
Fortunately, due to the historical timeline involved, the iconophiles were spared any such vision, and the iconoclasts any such weapon.

Peace, my friend.

Gaudior, by means of explanation.

A more cosmic character? What does this mean? Some kind of nestorianism, Christ was not truly God/cosmic in the flesh in Palestine?

Christian

In case anyone is interested: I had no idea that Lucifer of Cagliari appears in a calendar of saints, but he is of some slight historical interest as the consecrator of Paulinus "of Antioch", the bishop of the minute faction in Antioch which opposed Saint Meletius. If you want more information, look up the Meletian Schism at Antioch in reference works on the run-up to the Second Ecumenical Council
Incognitus

I was intrigued by Alex's remarks too.

Googling gave some 700 LoC, but 0 for Saint LoC & 1 for St. LoC - a remark in passing on another topic in the Cath.Encyc. Artotis has 0 hits for Saint, St., or otherwise (in the human context). As far as Ioasapha goes, there are many hits. Not only on the Latin calendar, btw, but also on the Greek Orthodox calendar August 26. There is also an old little tract available for purchase on this Saint with the writing attributed to Saint John Damascene.

Dear djs,

Well, the internet isn't the "be all and end all" of everything you know!

Artotis was expunged from the RC calendar a while ago, before the invention of the internet.

St Joasaph of India's biography was indeed written by St John of Damascus - and also by other Athonite saints who discovered it.

Fr. Holweck dismisses the very notion of "St Joasaph" and calls it a "Buddhist legend" - but there are those who will strenuously argue against this line of reasoning.

When I was in Hawaii, I happened across a Buddhist leader and we talked about our prayer-bead traditions over tea for a while.

I told him about the view concerning St Joasaph and the Buddhist connection. He was fascinated and took out a pen and paper and wrote it down.

"I'll include this in my next sermon!" he said, beaming from ear to ear.

As for St Lucifer of Cagliari, (are you listening incognitus? : Holweck states that he was the "Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia . . an energetic defender of the Nicene Creed against the Arian Emperor Constantius.

"Because he, in exaggerated language, resisted the sentence passed against St Athanasius at Milan, he was exiled with St Hilary to Palestine and the Thebaid. Allowed to return by Julian the Apostate, he wwent to Antioch and "incapable of tact" meddled in the dissensions of the Catholic party, consecrating the Latin priest Paulinus as patriarch of Antioch.

"By this rash act he caused the Luciferian schism, the adherents of which refused ecclesial communion with any former Arian bishop or priest. He vigorously protested against the indulgence of Eusebius towards the converts from Arianism, anathematized him and formed a small rigoristic sect.

"Disgusted, he withdrew to Sardinia and died at Cagliari, in 371 (in peace with the Church?). He is venerated as a saint in Sardinia where several churches are dedicated to him eg. at Vallermosa. Feastday - 20 May. Outside of these churches, his public cult was prohibited by Pope Urban VIII."

Believe it, or not . . .

Alex

It means that Mr. Lentz is a heretic, if he explains Christ's incarnation thus, and portrays Him with HORNS.

There is a GORGEOUS mosaic of Christ the Shepherd in a little church in Italy. It was done in the 4th or 5th century but it is an EXACT DUPLICATE OF A MOSAIC OF THE ROMAN SUN-GOD APOLLO down to the blonde hair and BEARD-LESS FACE....

Does this make the creators of this GORGEOUS mosaic heretics also????

mark

Alex - thanks for the information. It is not every day that one learns about a local saint venerated in Sardinia - especially one named Lucifer, of all things!
Incognitus

Indeed. But it is a pretty reliable repository of most every charge against the Church.

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, and I prefer the Italian "San Luciperro" - sounds a bit easier to take, wouldn't you agree?

Alex

Mark, if you want my opinion, it makes them theologically incorrect. To change the appearance of the Incarnate One is to deny His Incarnation. By giving Him the appearance of Apollo, they may have been playing on Son/Sun...but no less incorrect. Iconography is not judged by beauty, but by theological correctness as well.

I have seen iconography in monasteries that is stunning, but theologically incorrect, as its subject is God, the Father, and iconography of the Father is forbidden in the Orthodox Church. I have also seen LESS stunning iconography of God the Father in Orthodox Churches. The attempt in that case is misplaced piety, and confused theology.

Deciding Christ gets horns not only denies his human nature....but the write up becomes something else, and yes, it is heretical, in Lentz's case.

Portraying The Son of God as the Son of Zeus...I would say...without studying the REASONS behind it could swing either way. If the attempt was to tie into the pagan religion, to say, He is as Apollo...then yes, it IS heresy....regardless of beauty. If the attempt was confused theology...as stated, to say, let us portray the Light of the World as the replacement, the TRUE Sun...it falls under error...not deliberate twisting of truth, if I am making any sense. Wrong, beautiful, but wrong...but not on the level that Lentz was on, by giving Christ HORNS, and a write up like that.

Gaudior

So some say, but others disagree, presumably including the Patriarch of Moscow , who has included depictions of the Father in the restoration of Christ the Savior in Moscow.

Here's another perspective:
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm