www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pilgrim Vocation Icon Program

I don't know how many of you have been able to get a glimpse of the new "I Have Chosen You" icon, but it sure surpasses the "Sui Moi" icon in ugliness.

It greatly suffers from the lack of proper iconographic form and, in some ways, almost seems heretical.

A severely deformed Christ is holding a closed scroll, which signifies that all things have come to the end times.

The tree branch which is supposed to connect the man and woman (who are horribly portrayed themselves) is located in a very, well, not so pleasant place on the man.

My parish priest and myself are almost too embarrased to go forward with the program, but this is the icon which was mandated.

Why would our Church put something like this out into public? Do they want to scare off potential vocations?

Any thoughts out there?

Grow up.

I haven't seen this particular icon. Is there a picture on the web that you know of?

Dear Juiceman,

While you may not particularly like the style of the icon (we all have our own tastes, and that is fine), to say it is "almost heretical" is a very serious accusation. This icon was commissioned by one of your (plural, as in "all you Ruthenians") vocation directors, and I have been told that it was meticulously reviewed by Bishop Andrew Pataki of Passaic. Grant it, not every clergyman is an expert on iconography, but saying it is "almost heretical" casts doubt upon their competency.

Aside from the stylistic elements you discussed, what is almost heretical about it?

Also, I suggest that you either paint or commission someone to paint an icon you find acceptable and donate it as the next Vocation Icon for the Ruthenian eparchies. The iconographer who made the icon in question donated it and did not request payment.

Finally, do you really think it will scare off vocations? If someone becomes a priest or deacon or monastic only because they saw a pretty icon, they might need to reevaluate their vocation. Likewise, if someone didn't respond to God's call to ministry because they didn't like one icon, you're better off without them, and they'll have something to discuss before the awesome throne of God! God calls people to ministry, with or without snazzy holy cards. God can even use something that may be aesthetically unpleasing to some in order to do His will. Have you ever seen the original Mariapocs icon of the Mother of God? Maybe you can address those deformities as well?

Perhaps I shouldn't speak on this issue since I am not Byzantine Catholic?

Dave

Dave,

As an iconographer and fellow Eastern Christian your comments are most welcome.

It is a shame some would rather nitpick the icon becasue it is not executed according to their preferences rather than concentrate on the need to pray for, promote, and foster vocations.

Fr. Deacon Lance

All valid and interesting points on an icon I still haven't seen, but it does raise a question or two. Is there a style of Ruthenian icon, or does Ruthenian iconography have rules that are followed in writing icons? I am familiar with some of the Greek icons and more so, with Russian icons. Does the Metropolia Church have an identifiable icon style, or does it just copy those of others? I guess a related question would be are there American styles of Ruthenian icons? And granted, I suspect the Church does not have an official school for learning how to write icons, and it does seem that everyone's sister or cousin is an iconographer these days. I even know a Baptist who writes icons - and I might add a personal opinion that he doesn't really understand what he produces. Anyway, just curious and asking for my own information.

I do not think that the meaning Juiceman puts to the closed scroll is correct-I have three ikons where the scroll or book is closed, and in two of them, Jesus in holding the book or scroll-one is an ancient Greek Hodigitria (here Jesus holds a closed scroll) and the other is a Bulgarian Pantokrator (here a book). ISTM that the closed book signifies a mystery. Also, the painter's manuals (16th-18th Cen.s, Greek and Russian) i have allow for the scroll to be open or closed. Nothing uncanonical there.

BTW, there is a particular style of painting that is native to the Carpathians that is more folkish in execution-and relies very heavily on reds and ocres. Otherwise it is like Russian iconography-the non-westernized, that is. I happen to like it for its more monochrome palate.

In Christ,
Adam

Actually, our parish priest mentioned the issue about the closed scroll... as well as numerous other aspects which are not proper to Ruthenian iconography.

The icon was written by an Orthodox iconographer, but there is no mention in the information packet on who commissioned -- or approved -- this design.

I have not found a place to view it online, but, believe me, our Church could commission a much nicer icon than this.

---------------------------

Certainly the point of praying for vocations is paramount -- this coming from someone who is seriously considering the deaconate, himself -- but if an icon is going to accompany one for the week of prayer, it should follow our own style of iconography.

Oops. I now realize that my choice of the term 'heretical' was way out of line. I truly did not take into account the seriousness of its meaning, as Chtec rightly states.

-----

I also agree -- to a point -- about asthetic appearances. Many, if not most Western people, would consider the traditional style of iconography to be unappealing.

Overall, what I meant is that, for such a large program, our Church could make some better choices. There are plenty of iconographers in the Pittsburgh area, including the one who painted the festal icons for our iconostas, who are very skilled at putting forth a good image.

-----

The last icon would have been fine, except for the French "Sui Moi" which was plastered at the top.

Juiceman, and forum readers,

Consider the reality of vocations. Seriously, with all your heart and soul. It is NOT a lightly made decision!

One chooses the vocation of deacon "for the parish" not for his own edification. When priests are reassigned to different parishes the deacon does not get a say in who the new priest is. The parish does not either, but the parish continues and so does the vocation as deacon, priest, bishop etc. If the priest isn't 'of your style', then you will need to have the inner strength make things work out.

As a Priest, Monk, Nun, it is 'for the Church'. Again, things may not always go as desired or expected, but the vocation is for the church as a whole

While it would be nice to have the icon follow the Rusyn style, we nonetheless did not have a choice in the matter, and to decide whether vocations will come or go based on a purely human subjective point betrays the meaning of the icon and of praying for an increase in vocations.

Steve,
a cantor serving the parish I grew up in.
(while cantors are not considered a vocation in the Ruthenian church I feel that the duties of a cantor require largely the same level of discipline as ordained vocations).

I serve my parish in many ways, whether it be through singing, reading, bulletins, website, pushing for and aiding in restoration of our Eastern traditions, etc.

Everyone, including myself, knows how serious the need is for vocations, and that the issue is not an easy one to discern, nor is made for personal gain. I am one of those discerning souls.

We have recently endured one of the hardest changes in pastors in the history of our parish, so I know exactly what you mean when no one, save the bishop, make the final decision on who serves where.

My original post was meant simply as a critique of an icon program which could be better. Yes, it could be worse. However, there are so many, more suitable icons which deal with the Lord's calling people to serve the Church.

I simply don't understand why our Church chose an icon which does not reflect the beauty which She contains.

I did not mean to offend anyone, but obviously I have. For that I am sorry.

But, please, no one accuse me of taking our Church or vocations seriously. My zeal for the Eastern Church is very strong.

That last sentence should have read:

But, please, no one accuse me of *NOT* taking our Church or vocations seriously. My zeal for the Eastern Church is very strong.

I saw it yesterday.

It looks a bit odd - the man is in a suit and tie, and the woman appears to be in draperies??

At least with this one, Jesus is clearly male.

It's better than the *last* one in that regard.


Agreed that the need for vocations is critical.

Sharon

Maybe Sharon figured out what is "un-Ruthenian" about the icon: the man and woman aren't dressed like krajani, with embroidered shirts and all that jazz!

Dave

Thanks for the description, since I haven't found a copy anywhere to actually see. So are you saying it's unusual, or is it just bad art? I understand how some of these things go. In the church that became the cathedral of the RC diocese here, there was a large painting of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It was horrid. The artist belonged to a prominent family in the church and it couldn't be taken down without offending them. Even Protestant visitors to the church usually remarked on the "horrible painting." It was an altar piece behind the altar and was huge. In all fairness, it was done early in the career of the artist, and his later works were much improved over his early ones. Finally, enough time elapsed that it was taken down.