www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall ANIMAL ICONS?!?

Uh, Henry, are you sure you're not an Episcopalian?
I specifically noted that creation is sacred in my comment; indeed just as man is divinized by grace, so animals are humanized by contact with graced humans, as our history attests.
That said, an animal cannot be portrayed with a halo, as an animal does not possess a will in the sense that a human does, thus is incapable of conquering sin and mastering the self, and all the other struggles necessary to attain holiness.
-Daniel

Daniel,

What do you mean they do not have wills like us? What exactly does that mean? Angels do not have wills like us, but they can and are given angels. Are you saying they do not have wills? Then St Maximus' reason for saying Christ had to have a human will, since all natures manifest through will and energy, would be in error.

Indeed, the communication which have been done with higher primates suggests they understand the difference between right and wrong, that they know shame. That seems to show,at least for some level of animals, those which we know and can communicate with, that they can have issues of will, struggle, and moral rectitude.

Having studied much of the literature on how it was justified to say animals were not rational -- while it might still work for some -- does not work for all, and indeed, could be applied as a means to saying humans were not rational and meant for immortality. One of my favorite examples of St Thomas Aquinas was to say: if a mother sees their children about to be killed, they will get in the way and sacrifice themselves to spare the children. Therefore, they do not desire immortality, therefore they do not have an immortal, rational soul. Anyone see the problem with this logic?

The silence of Scripture, and the one-sided humanness of it often is used to justify what is said of animals, to treat them as non-rational. But an argument from silence is no argument, and the views of scientific discovery show rational self-awareness in many animals: tool-creation was also recently proved for dolphins.

But scripture does hint that animals are part and parcel in the whole plan, and the Fathers sayd God is ALL deifying (not just for humanity). St Dionysius is strong on that issue. I do think Brother Wolf in the St Francis tale is more of the things to come through deification, but in saying that, it also shows there is heroic virtue able to be had in animals (as per Brother Wolf's covenant).

I am not an expert on it, but I believe it has been proven that much of the "research" to which you allude was highly colored by the expectations of the researchers.
I meant that animals cannot be said to possess a free will the way that humans do; they are creatures of instinct. Thus animals cannot sin, and cannot be said to choose virtue.
Of course on some primitive level we can speak of a pet "choosing" to be a good doggie or being a bad doggie, but this is really a sort of anthropomorphism.
I think our culture is unduly infected by Disneyization.
For if animals can be said to be holy, they must also be capable of being damned. Why does no one speak of animals in hell? I personally have known some dogs that would have ended up there if they were culpable for sin! And has there ever existed an unselfish cat?
-Daniel

yeah, and I used to raise hamsters; now Daryl was my favorite, I guess he'll make it, but his sister Cindy was a total psycho who ate her babies at a drop of a hat, not to mention to kick the stuffing out of Daryl, yup, I'll bet no one will make an Icon of her any time soon. Regina; Daryl and Cindy's mother, was a saint if there ever was in the animal kingdom, never bit me, but she walloped Cindy when she often needed it. Caesar, the patriarch, was laid back. and then there was Rudy, (diabolically bright), Tristan and Isolde,Leo, Corky,and Crystal (Daryl's second mate, she was a saint, but not high as Regina on the heirarchy). now Puddles the Cat, the Alsatians: Caesar, Sheba, Champ, Lena (also lovingly known as Donkey Ears), and the Sheltie Kippy, my first hamster Alvin, and a host of other critters owned by various members of the family could be discussed. there is a wideness in God's mercy, including all creatures great and small, but I don't know about Icons. somehow, I just can't see myself lighting a candle before an Icon of St. Daryl the MonkeyMouse, I'll stick with the human saints, after all, like me, they were human, all too human.
Much Love,
Jonn

The research continues to advance, and it has not been proven that it is colored by expectations. Rather, the development of new words, new sentences, and even the exchange of this data from one generation to another -- has been shown to happen in the case of various primates.

"We don't discuss animals going to hell." That is an argument from silence. It is similar to how some speculate all but Israel was damned to hell because the Tanakh did not say they were part of God's plan -- they were not "God's chosen." We must remember the perspective and discussion has generally been within our own human level.

St Francis of Assisi was trained by Walt Disney? What about Porphyry (though not a Christian, one who discussed issues of free will within animals and their ability to make choices).

I think we often confuse the perspective which we have -- which is for and about us -- as being all conclusive of what God's relationship with the rest of the universe tends to be. It is similar to how Israel treated its relationship with God, only to find out that this view was way too narrow. Also, I would have to say, I think our culture is still suffering from the effects of the Cartesian view of animals -- just machines, no souls. While that has never been the Catholic view, many people are influenced by this in how they view animals. It has tinted the way they are generally viewed and treated.

It makes sense that if one accept evolution than there will be various levels of freedom and rational capabilities within different animals (as I believe there is), even as there are within humans and in our own personal development.

Either way, this is an issue I do think needs to be examined more, especially in connection to what has been discovered through scientific research. While we have cosmologically transcended the pre-Copernican view of the universe, we still have not taken into account many of the biological advances, and we rely upon philosophical notions developed upon the very outdated Aristotlean notions of biology. They have had a major influence on this very question as it was raised and answered in the West. Our Eastern tradition has been more holistic and cosmological in principle, and sees God as deifying all of creation including animals (St Maximus points out that one of the roles of humanity is to mediate between God and animals, to help bring about their integration into the heavenly realm). But even then, I think we can learn far more if we overcome our societal prejudices and look to what has been discovered. It might not be a comfortable thing to look into because there might not be easily-discernable answers to the questions this brings up.

Back to icons: remember, Noah's Ark is an icon of the Church, and represents the Church and it's saving voyage across the sea of sin. Why are animals included in it, if they are not to be fellow-travellers in that voyage?

Henry- In spite of your misrepresentation of my position, we are not so far apart in our views.
With St. Francis, I affirm my kinship with all creation, and with St. Maximus I too believe that Man elevates the Animal Kingdom, just as God elevates the Human Kingdom.
In Man, [Adam] all of Creation fell. In the God-Man, Jesus Christ [the New Adam] all Creation rises.
For Man, united with the New Adam, this means divinization [theosis] . For animals, united with the Redeemed Man, this means hominization . The beasts begin to attain characteristics of a higher level of being: the rudiments of reason, reverence, even speech.
Where our argument lies is not in these general principles but in the very specific question of whether it is appropriate to portray animal with halos, as saints.
Of course animals appear in icons; I have painted some myself: the raven feeding St Elias, St Francis holding a chickadee [with some poetic license; the chickadee being native to North America], St Mary Euphrasia, foundress of the RC order of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, petting a lamb.
However, in iconography symbols have specific meanings. Iconography is a language.
In that language, the halo- a circle of light, rendered in gold, the most radiant, incorrupt and subtle substance in the material world- represents divinization . Only man- and angels by a different, as it were natural, mode- can attain this. Perhaps we need a symbol for humanization, to represent the holy animals. If so it will evolve [super] naturally but at this point it doesn't exist.
And my argument that if animals can attain heaven they must also be capable of damnation is not an "argument from silence"; it is a strictly logical conclusion: if they can attain virtue then they must be culpable for vice and sin.
I knew a bad German Shephard in the 70s named Cody that truly qualified as wicked.
And you know, I really can't picture St. Francis laying flowers at the feet of a statue of St. Rex, or burning a candle before the icon of St. Puff...
-Daniel

Daniel,

I do not think I misrepresented your position (where did I). But you did not understand my point on the argument from silence: you said "we do not say.... therefore it doesn't happen." My point is that is an argument from silence. Since it has not been said that they can be bad, that does not mean it is not possible to say it. Indeed, I would say it -- I find evil to exist in the animal world. Indeed, I know animals which have used trickery to do evil, and we have records of some of the brutality and "wars" between different groups of primates. So while it has not been said historically that is only an argument from silence as I said.

And remember what I said, God is all-deifying (not just man-deifying). I know very well what the halo represents -- it is connected to the light of tabor, the participation in the uncreated energies. But why, again, do you say animals are not able to partake-- why are they not able to be involved in the all-deifying love of God?

If moral evil exists in the animal world - are we obliged to try to stop it? If so, how? If not, why not?

ByzCat that is not as simple a question as you might think. We can go into the human sphere and ask the same question. Most people, even the Church, would say that some kinds of moral evil can be allowed legally (hence no force to stop). There is an aspect of moral evil being an issue of free choice, and free choice is to be preserved.

On the other hand, there are things which we can and should stop in the human sphere. Why not in the animal as well? I see nothing wrong with that logic. The question of what, on the other hand, might be more complicated.

How many people with pets punish them if they do something wrong? I know many do. So in theory, I know people who are trying to correct animals for wrong choices (whether or not it was a moral issue).

uh, I can't help but wonder if ByzKat is Kat for Catholic, or Kat for feline. in the context of this thread, I just can't help but wonder, as it does beg the question (oh, cats don't beg as brazenly as dogs)
Much Love,
Jonn

Isn't the icon on the right side of the tryptich that of St. Labradorius the Black?

Even in the Kingdom in its fullness there will be hierarchies of being. Man shall be lifted by participation in the divine nature, but he will remain a created, contingent being. He will not be God's equal.
Animals will receive humanization and no doubt come to possess reason and speech; they will remain animals and will not be Man's equal.
I am not sure what you are proposing; some sort of melding of all natures into an undifferentiated One?
Or all being flowing into Ultimate Being?
At any rate both here and hereafter animals are not humans, are not created in the image of God [though all creation bears his imprint] and really, when it hits me that I am having a serious argument with an intelligent person about the appropriateness of portraying St Misty and the Blessed Ruff it sort of seems surreal...
Daniel

Henry- Of course if you are right that means that Cody is burning in hell. However, he may have found mercy, as his owner was a stoned youth who thought it was cool to egg him on in his ornery ways. Perhaps it was a matter of invincible ignorance...
But that was one Bad Dog.
Daniel

And last I heard Darwinian evolution was not a de fide doctrine of the Church, only an allowed opinion. I am free to be an agnostic on this speculation [which seems unpoetic and unlikely to me.]
-D

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (I Cor 15:28)

It was asked if everything will be consumed and absolved into one. The question has problems, first and foremost because it is based upon a bad reading of what I said. I did not deny distinctions in the deified, eschatologically new aeon. But on the other hand, we must also recognize that there will in a sense be God as "all in all." This unity in diversity, unity in distiction is true within humanity (would you say that the relationships within humanity, the personal distinctions are lost when one says humanity is deified?) but also true in relation to the whole of creation. None of us are who we are outside of our relationship to the whole of creation -- we are who we are in our body, which is in turn what it is in relation to the rest of the creator order. In the way that we will be, so that there will be a "Henry" and a "Daniel" and that there will be a "men" and "women" even in the eschatological experience of the aeon, so there will also be "fish" and "cat" and "dog" and "elephant" et. all in the aeon. They will be as they are - within their body even as we are to be in our body, but experiencing the all-deifying and unifying love of God in their own way. The light of God shines through all of creation, the Spirit is all-pervasive, not just in humanity.

So in answer to the question -- no, these diversities are to be included in the eschaton. But the diversities and distinctions are in relation to the whole of creation, in a holistic whole of the new creation which includes all that is in creation now, deified and brought together under Christ and in Christ (as per I Cor).

The relationship between man and animal will continue -- purified- in the eschaton, just as the relationship between man and man will be. Even as there is abuse between man and man, and many in history have only seen other men as sub-human, so we are beginning to learn that our treatment and understanding of "subhumans" has also been incorrect and abusive. But in saying this, we must not deny that there is also a distinct relationship between animal and God in their own right. While tradition has often said only man is made in the image of God, I find the reasons given for this to be insufficient. At worst it is best to say we know man is made in the image of God, we do not know about the rest. This rests upon the notion that Scripture says we are made in God's image but is silent about others being in or not in God's image. If one examines it philosophically, one begins to see the imprint on God's image in all of creation too - in a diversity of forms and ways. Nicholas of Cusa's "On God as Not-Other" expresses this point very well in many different fashions.

I will end this with a beautiful prayer attributed to St Basil (I am trying to find the source for it):

GOD, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers, the animals, to whom thou gave the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty, so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to thee in song, has been a groan of travail. May we realize that they live not for us alone but for themselves and for thee and that they love the sweetness of life.

Pax
Henry