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

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal_artists_17638_ENG_HTM.htm

I like animals as much as the next person, but I absolutely refuse to venerate them. This is blasphemous!

Gaudior, now subsiding to go eat some chocolate and recover from the shock

As an iconographer, this simply disgusts me. Those saints did a whole heck of a darned lot to get those halos and those portraits. Getting an icon actually means something. And this woman has attempted to destroy that. Thank God the Episcopal Church is dying out, otherwise I'd be truly worried.

Obviously this woman needs prayers, prayers that I'll be happy to offer.

This is absoultely insane! Oh the bizarre things that come out of ECUSA these days!

Jason a sinner

So you do not like the icon of St. Calico, St. Corgi, and St. Labrador? Yes, sorry this is bad. I should not have looked but I was curious.

I will do penance for this post.

Michael

Those arent going to be put in a church are they?

LOL: Myles, you have the gift of droll understatement !

I didn't see St. Bernard in there ...

What is disgrace! Obviously this woman does not understand the true meaning of icons.

(PS - My dog passed away last night. Now my best friend is gone . Whenever I would get her food ready to feed her or when I would get out her leash, she would do a dance for joy, turning circles in the air. Now I'm sure she is having the same reaction in heaven. She was such a good dog, even saving my life once. HOWEVER, I would never paint an icon of her.)

Yes, I ran across this clown on the internet when I was googling "iconography" some time ago; I use it as an example of how bad things can get when you depart from tradition when I teach.
Hey, if all creation is sacred in the sense that she means it [for it is true that all creation is in some sense sacred] why stop with the animal kingdom; why not icons of rocks and gasses and insects and worms? Hmm?
-Daniel

Deepest sympathies on the loss of your little friend, Rose2!

Gaudior!!!!

:rolleyes:

Alice, who notes that the artist is of Greek background and Orthodoxy...

(All: please don't stone me because of that! )

I actually had a good laugh at the animal icons.

I don't like cats at all and seeing one with a halo was pretty funny to me.

She is just misguided. That's all.

Hi UkrainianCatholic,

I actually found them a bit amusing as I didn't think of them as 'sacred' in any way (barring St. Bernard--JUST kidding)....
I see where they could be considered blasphemous...
My husband thought they were "ridiculous"...
I guess that it is all in how you look at them! :rolleyes:

Alice

Well ... what can you expect from a church body that produced the likes of Bishop Spong?!?!

While it is rather odd, we must remember that there is some truth in the notion and it is worthwhile to discuss some of it. We should not entirely dismiss the idea (we have icons with animals in them, from Adam naming the animals, to Jonah and the Whale).

What is an icon? It's a window into heaven (among many other aspects associated with them). While it probably is inappropriate to make "Saint Oscar" from one's dead dog, there can be some theological ground for it: if we believe that all of creation is restored in Christ, and from the prophecies of scripture that this will include animals (the lion shall lay with the lamb) then, if one truly believes an animal is somehow restored in Christ and experiencing God in heaven, can they find a way to express it? Is this not also the justification for making icons of people who have not been officially canonized?

There are a few historical animals I would even say we can use to confirm this notion and I would not find it inappropriate to make icons of them. The best example of this to me is Brother Wolf (from the life of St Francis). The whole story calls for the wolf somehow being transformed by contact with Francis, even becoming rational (able to bargain and come into a covenant relationship). Indeed people visited the relics of Brother Wolf for centuries, and I think his skeleton is still used for pilgrimages in Italy.

So, while it seems odd, there seems to be a sacramental, even incarnational view at work, one which in fact remembers the cosmic signifance of Christ. Is it heretical? Indeed, it might even be able to be used to show us that God is at work in the whole of creation, that animals can be spirit-bearers (something many of us forget, despite the whole story of Balaam's ass)

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

Well this is the type of thing English aristocrats would do for fun, paying iconographers to paint their pets, being such lovers of animals. It's as if the Westminster dog show became apostolic. I hope she doesn't make dog-faced St. Christopher Icons as well. Since I did not grow up with this tradition I am not fond of having my saints face protrayed as a dog..although it does keep me humble. Animals may be intelligent but they are not saints and can no way be held to the standard of humans, having an animal as a symbol or in the background is fine but to be a Saint is impossible. I believe they have vegetative souls..different levels..that's all I know. I'm thankful to be part of the Church with the fullness of truth.

What has England and dog shows got to do with this stuff? People with old money tend to manage it and not thow it around who ever they are, even on this stuff.

If the Crufts dog show which will be held this year in Birmingham in the English Midlands very, soon has any claim to fame it will be because of it's proximity to the Edgbaston Cricket Ground, home to the Warwickshire County Cricket Club which to some of us is a very sacred site indeed. Now that is a long sentence. The other of course is Lords (many of us pronounce Lourdes the same way) in London. To be on the safe side we vernerate both sites equally. As England is Mary's dowry it is OK.

Now this off the wall stuff is American (Californian if one wants to further pinpoint the problem), so sorry no one is putting their hands up to claim as share in this one. This one is all yours.

ICXC
NIKA

This show how far the Episcoplains have denegrated (notice I did not say Church), and to those with any sense it is laughable.
Stephanos I

It's a pity! I've been trying to see those icons, but I can't get them on my computor. Now I really wanted to see them so I could have a good laugh. I just love the 'rediculous'.

Well just thinking about dogs being made into icons, had me laughing while reading the posts. Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but aren't you people taking it a little too serious?

Zenovia

Dear Henry you posted the following:

"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.

I say:

How beautiful! We seem to forget that there was a time when animals were severely mistreated. I believe it was St. Seraphim of Sarov that stopped a man from beating his horse in Russia.

Zenovia

Alright. I'll say it's californian anglophiles who've read too much James Herriot.

I also agree that animals must be treated respectfully when possible. So long as they aren't Tigers, the former symbol of incarnate evil, eating over 100,000 Indians in the 1800's alone. I admire the halal and kosher laws for meat. I will try to never stalk an animal out of entertainment value if I need/desire meat to eat. I would pray over it and kill it quickly not take pleasure to watch it die slow. Which is what I think a few hunters do. If I'm wrong let me know.

That is a very praiseworthy and reasonable philosophy, Criostoir. Humans should always do whatever they can to prevent animals from needless suffering. There is nothing sadder than the sight of a little critter who's been injured and doesn't understand why.

I wondered how long it would take before someone brought up the usual tiresome Anti-California take on things (Hast thou ever been here???) :rolleyes:

Gosh, but the fur is really flying here . . .

Alex

(sigh) Okay, here goes nothin' !!

I grew up in Missouri and lived there till I was 22. Then I moved to California and have lived here till now. (We don't have to get into how many years that is ... details, details ... )

And granted I am but one lone voice crying out in the wilderness.

However, FYI I met more wacko animal rights types (and other types of wackos - like New Age, Wiccan, etc.) in Missouri than I've ever met in California. Not that they're not out here, of course, but they tend to be quieter and more integrated with the rest of the community.

The answer is blowing in the wind...Yes! Bin there got the Tshirt. Yes I have family there and friends. Southern California is a most interesting place.

ICXC
NIKA

Animal icons? This one is frightening:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/images/EL_ASAnIcGran.jpg

The sad part is she is talented but has no idea what she is doing. There are some nice icons on the website but she has not got a clue.

ICXC
NIKA

Okay, but to be fair, the Episcopalian Church has a very different view on what constitutes sainthood. They don't consecrate saints in the same way that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do, for the purposes of venerating them and praying to them; it's more of a "this person did good things, they're a good example to follow" mentality.

So yes, perhaps it seems a little silly to us but I don't think the artist is being intentionally blasphemous or trying to insult anyone. She (and I haven't even checked but somehow I am sure the artist is a she! ) just read a book about icons, was impressed, thought it was an interesting art form and decided to give it a shot. It happens.

Dear Dolly,

And it is possible to write icons of one's parents and others who gave a great Christian example to us etc.

The Anglican churches have undergone a development in the saints department over the years - and it also depends on whether one is "Low and lazy" or "Middle and hazy" or "High and crazy!"

The "High's" consider King Charles I to be a true Saint and Martyr and will call others "Blessed" as in "Blessed William Laud" or "Blessed Nicholas Ferrar" or "Holy Mr. Herbert" and the like.

There is an Anglican monastic establishment down the street from my parish church and they have their founder, James Otis Sargent Huntington, in their litany of the Saints and refer to him as "Holy James Huntington - pray for us."

There is also an Anglican order of Sisters who run a medical establishment who have even painted an icon of their Foundress, Hannah Combs, in their chapel.

I tend to speak up for the High Church people as I don't know anyone from the other two levels.

Alex

And C.S. Lewis was an Anglican too. So they definitely have their good points!

It is a strange church that is a coalition of opposites. They have their 39 articles and yet they permit people to basically believe what they like. A church that has some who believe in the Eucharist and those who don�t. There is more diversity at the international level. They are a legend at accommodation of opposites and I have no doubt they will keep on doing this with the appointment of gay bishops and anything else. We have the same here in Australia with the very powerful Archdiocese of Sydney which has a long history of anti Catholicism and does not permit statues in their Cathedral or the wearing of vestments. They are the ones holding the line here while the other diocese have women priests and will one day move up to having women bishops. Sydney on the other hand is moving towards lay leadership at �Holy Communion�. Sydney threatens to go off by itself with it�s �North End� services but it wont. They will be around on the scene for a while yet.

ICXC
NIKA

What this icon writer has done is a sin against the first commandment.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
The first commandment condemns belief in other gods. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols" of silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak, eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshipers empty. Those who make them are like them, so are all who trust in them. God, however, it the "living God",who gives life and intervenes in history.
Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It reamins a constant temptation to faith, Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.

Saint Paul warns the Romans against the sin of idolatry.He tells us that the wrath of God is revealed against such people, that they have become foolish and perverted, they are without excuse, they have become futile in their thinking and their senseless mind are darkened.
They claim to be wise but they have become fools, and exchanged the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Beloved flee from idolatry!

Stephanos I
We need to pray that this poor deceived soul be enlightened by the truth of the Gospel.

Dear Stephanos I,

I sincerely believe that the 'icons' of animals were not meant to be worshipped. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. It seems to me that they were painted with the idea of being 'cutsy'.

Now I know that one must pray a great deal when 'writing' an icon. I seriously doubt that the artist prayed, expects or believes that they will have any spiritual value.

But then again, we all tend to 'worship' our pets, don't we?

Zenovia

It is not "cutsy" at all. If you read the qoute of her words she calls "all of creation divine" this is clearly pantheistic and an abomination to God.
Stephanos I

Perhaps Icon Style artworks of animals could serve as a menu for religious feasts. ;)They could serve a spiritual purpose of reminding us to look forward to good things to come