www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Crossing of Arms

Matthew,

Since you decided to question my authority on this list, I'll respond in public. The paragraph was deleted because it directly attacked another poster. That is not tolerated here. The post that questioned the "Latins" was done, in my opinion, tongue in cheek and, therefore, was not offensive.

BTW, I speak English pretty well, and I'm reasonably well educated. I fully understood what you posted, and that's why I deleted it.

Fr. Deacon Ed, Moderator

As a Latin, I personally did not take offense to the post that questioned the Latins, but was saddened to hear that my fellow Latin brothers and sisters in Christ approach the chalice in a way that could possibly comprimise the sanctity of the Body and Precious Blood of Christ.


Brad -

Our bi-ritual pastor for our Byzantine mission has to frequently tell visiting Latins how to receive communion. When they approach, they quite naturally do what they know. They don't realize that their methods are not ours, but generally seem to understand that their methods will simply not work with the way we give communion. The Latin Rite has intinction as a legitimate form of communion, but I get the feeling it's rarely used.

I'll never forget the day I approached Communion in a Latin Catholic Church (that is in union with the Pope of Rome) and crossed my arms.

The priest smiled at me, did NOT give me Communion but blessed me instead . . .

Alex

One of the fist questions I asked before I attended a EC Divine Liturgy was how to receive Holy Communion.

And to Alex my dear Canadian brother,
I'll take this as permission to update my member status to "byz in training"

Brad.

Dear Brad,

Our Eastern Churches would be blessed to have you, Big Guy!

If it's any of my "Byz-ness . . ."

Alex

Dear Matthew and friends,

I think that perhaps the term 'writing' an icon came into vogue because of the translation from the Greek...(and Matthew did refer to 'translations')...

You see, in Greek, the term for one who paints icons is ICONOGRAPHOS...literally meaning, in English, 'one who writes icons'.

Some Orthodox think it to be pretentious, but I think that those who use it are simply trying to be accurate. I have no opinion, and really don't care or mind, one way or another, as all translations are a problem, by mere fact that they are just that: translations!

On the other hand, I don't think that a non-Orthodox would have a clue as to what you were talking about if they heard someone say 'the icon was written by.....'. They might, infact, think that you were a bit wierd or maybe had one too many to drink!

Just some thoughts,
Alice

Alice, when I use the term "write" to explain icon writing to Protestants, I also tell them that icons are not just pretty pictures. They are like gospels which tell a story just like the written word.

Dear Charles,

That is a beautiful way to describe icons. I am curious as to how they respond to something so alien to their culture?

Although perhaps today icons are not as alien to the American eye as they were thirty years ago. I remember my grandparent's neighbors at their summer house-- they were Methodists that had never travelled farther than thirty minutes away from their town, and whose family had been in that town for generations...

Well, as if my Grandparents and their friends and many visiting relatives weren't strange enough by virtue of their ethnic makeup, you should have seen how 'frightened' (apparent in how they avoided looking at them) they were by the surreal religious art which we Easterners know as iconography! Fortunately for the good neighbors, who dropped in often, my grandparents weren't all that 'old world' and the icons were delegated to the bedrooms. I can only imagine if my grandparents were traditionalists and had an icon corner in the living room!

Alice

Dear Alice,

Thanks for the email and your concern. Here is a response I submitted from another thread I while back, perhaps it is helpful.

Are iconographic traditions literal or allegorical? Which is more important?"

Saint Luke in known as the first iconographer in the Orthodox tradition. No need to be sorry for the use ot the word "painted" since most iconographer's typically use the word painted when referring to the rendering of an icon. The use of the terminology "write" is really term that is focused on that is really insignificant. What is significant is that the work is done with obedience to Christ and with humility known in the traditions of the Orthodox Church and faith.

The Russian word pisat, means both painting and writing. To quote a learned friend regarding a discussion on the matter and the difficulty with with the limits of the current english language.

"Shifting the locus of the problem from the difficult English word, writing (as in writing an ikon), back to its source in Old Greek, recalls as the Archbishop has said, a history more than a writing. Yet, the Greek meaning is really neither of these. This then shifts our focus back to the Old Greek that yields much more sense.

Even in Liddell-Scott (which is not Old Greek), istorikos is a scientific term, focusing on that which is exact and precise. Then, istorioyrafia is embedded in this scientific meaning when it refers, not just to history, but history writing. For based upon the Old Greek word, istor (ISTOR), the emphasis primarily, "denotes an action, and only secondarily a state." [Kittel; III:391"

Actually the original and the first Icon of Theotokos painted by St. Luke was made of wax and mastic and convex in shape and I don't know how you paint with wax exactly. So I don't think the term "write" or"paint" really matters to much as the icon is the important matter at hand.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I find they respond to icons positively. I usually make a comparison to picture books or picture bibles they had as children, and how they told of wonderful events in understandable terms. People today are so visually oriented, what with TV, movies and such, that I think the visual images of icons communicate quite effectively.

Dear Charles,

Yes, I've never known a Protestant to not like icons.

In some instances, statues seem to get their dander up as they relate them to "graven images" as discussed in the Old Testament.

But icons seem to strike a good nerve with them.

I've also gotten my Protestant friends interested in icons through pictures of some of their Protestant worthies, like John Wesley and the like.

Methodists seem to have a history of honouring the memory of their martyrs and even relics to an extent.

One Southern commander gave his men pieces of the clothing of a Methodist preacher who had reposed in the odour of sanctity and this before a major battle.

Methodists love to stand under the tree where Francis Asbury preached and I understand that when Wesley's home in England was refurbished, Methodists bought up the bricks of his old establishment as "holy reminders."

Of course, one of the best books on the Rosary is "Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy" by Neville Ward, a Methodist.

And John Wesley himself used a rosary, a knotted cord.

I used to have a Methodist book of devotion that advised creating a knotted cord for repetition of psalm verses.

Alex

A few random comments that eventually get to the point of this thread...

Regarding us "Stupid LATINS", I too did not take offense, but please be patient with us. It is not out of disrespect that some of us may receive incorrectly - it is simply out of deeply ingrained habit. When I am able to attend an Eastern Church (unfortunately too rarely), I still find myself spending most of my mental energy for the first hour of Liturgy reminding myself "keep tongue in, keep tongue in, KEEP TONGUE IN!". But then I will get in line and be so caught up with the awesome mystery of receiving Our Lord that I still sometimes forget!

Also, I want to relate a story about icons. I recently have been teaching my young children (all under 8) about icons. It is amazing to see their complete and immediate love of icons, for which they have had just a little exposure until recently. My oldest daughter (age 7) recently told my wife that she really, really wants a prayer table like Daddy with a crucifix and a "bunch of icons" in her room. She also is disappointed that she only has one icon next to her bed and her two sisters (age 5 & 3) are begging for their own icons of their patrons to put next to their bed as well. We have always had a few statues around, but my kids never seem too interested in them.

I told them that soon we will take a "field trip" to a Church that is filled with icons (they have never been to an Eastern Liturgy), and they are very excited. But I'm still not sure how to go about communion, since none of them have received First Communion yet, and I have trained them to cross their arms when going up so that they receive a blessing and not communion.

Francis,

I'd suggest planning to arrive a bit early and speak with the priest. I'm sure that if it's Holy Transfiguration to which you're going that Father Joe will be most accomodating to your concerns (when I saw him at the enthronement of Archbishop Cyril, he told me to "keep sending those Latins to us." ).

Many years,

Neil

To All,

In reference to crossing one's arms, my grandmother, who immigrated from a Greek island, and would have been over 120 years old had she lived, always told us to pray standing, with our arms folded on our breast. She also said to face towards the East.

Now I always presumed facing East was an Orthodox tradition until I came across the following interesting tidbit. A crusader seeing a Muslim facing Mecca, kept lifting him up so that he would face the East. I guess it was a practice in the West also.

Zenovia