www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall An Interesting RC Church in Galveston

This FB link was sent to me by someone who was , putting it mildly , intrigued

Iconostasis in an RC Church ? [facebook.com]

With apologies I'm no good at getting photos on Byzcath

I was so fascinated by this and so was my informant that we started to look round the Site

Yes there is an explanation for their Icon Screen - in a Video on the Site

Br Robert Lentz explains [allsaintsheights.com]

I wonder what you all think about it.

I've read about and discussed this thing and Br. Robert overy at CAF.. almost unanimously everyone agreed that at best his stuff is problematic, at worst, down right nausesting and prohomosexual.. frankly I'm surprised Cardinal DiNardo hasn't censured him

I find that a rather unkind thing to say about a Franciscan friar who, in his discourse concerning his work, made a very sincere and plausible attempt to justify his effort to modify and adapt an ancient Byzantine form to modern, western styles of worship and architecture. Is his work really "stuff", and is it really "nauseating and prohomosexual"? Please. Who is CAF anyway?

Here is a link to some of his work

Trinity Store [trinitystores.com]

Ouch! Some of that stuff is truly horrifying.

An "Icon" of Harvey Milk?!?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

That's insightful. The disappearing volume of posts on this forum says it all. How does one unregister? Or, do you just stop posting?

Harvey Milk, if you don't know, was very active in promoting gay rights. Sadly, he was assassinated. However, he was not in any way a Catholic saint, in fact he was Jewish. Why would my objection to this and other heretical and politically based pseudo "icon" propoganda be objectionable to you?

I also see that he depicts such figures as Rumi (the Sufi mystic) and the multi-gendered We-wha of Zuni.

Very disturbing.

I am not amused !!!!!!

Utroque:

Christ is in our midst!!

My understanding of what iconography is about is that it is not, strictly speaking, about the art. It is a "window onto eternity" meant to draw one into the presence of the one depicted and into communion with Christ and those who are already in the Kingdom.

The depictions of politically correct figures like Harvey Milk are as much an affront as some icon-like images posted several years ago that had New Age additions to the images, including one that had a snake surrounding it.

These Westernized images are not real icons. They mimic icons, even when that is not the intention.

Bob

Because the man was a victim of the very bigotry you seem to espouse. As to his Jewishness, might you recall that Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Holy Mother and Apostles, including St. Paul were Jews. Some of them may even have been homosexual. In any case, I would stand up for their rights as I would any individual of good will. Amen. Amen!

what bigotry is that? The one that discriminates that iconography is limited to those of Christian faith and martyrs for that faith, perhaps even only of the Catholic/Orthodox/Assyrian persuasion?

Besides this, wasn't Dan White's reason for killing the Mayor and Supervisor because he thought his resignation wouldn't be rescinded as he wanted? How is that bigotry related? Sure Harvey Milk was harassed for supporting gay rights, many rights that should be had by any citizen. However, this spin is more propaganda not reality.

You are on very thin ice with this. Jewish groups object vehemently when Mormons claim Jews as their own and 'baptize' them post-death; do you think this phony 'gesture' would be appreciated? Would Martin Luther King Jr. really want to be venerated in an icon?

Ok, so you have a preconceived agenda.

What right is that? The "right" to bastardize someone else's Traditions for their own propaganda and rhetorical purposes? What's the practical difference between these "icons" and the one's of Stalin and Lenin created by Marxists in the Moscow Museum - other than one supports your political persuasion?

Utroque

Since in both East and West a halo is regarded as the indication that a person has been declared a saint are you happy with some of the depictions on the Site at TrinityStores ?

How about the depiction in the centre of the top row on page 7.

Utroque:

Christ is in our midst!!

Forgive me for revisiting your quote. Iconography is part of the Byzantine tradition of worship and theology. The theology behind icons relates to the fact that those depicted are glorified as saints by one of the Orthodox Churches. As such, to depict someone who has not been glorifed turns the process around. It is no longer God who lets us know who has served Him and received the reward of his works, but we who pass judgment on a person using the criteria of the world and not those of the Faith. So we are glorifying an earthly kingdom of our own making and not depicting the Kingdom which is to come and already is in our midst.

Beyond that, there are strict rules for iconography that call for the depictions being done in an "other-worldly" fashion. As such, it is not about "adapting" this tradition but accepting it for what it is--a part of the litrugical and faith tradition of the Christian East which expresses its experience of the Tradition of the Apostles, Fathers, and Saints.

Bob

He is and shall be!

My quote was not an attempt to justify Friar Robert's work, but rather to understand his justification for his work in the face of what I saw was a rather crass and unkind attempt to condemn it. I am well aware of the ancient and hallowed Traditions of the eastern Church regarding icons and reverence them continually in my midst as one grounded in that Tradition. It is rather obvious that Brother Lentz's iconography is unconventional, but to heap scorn on it because it does not follow standard, orthodox criteria, or because he "iconographizes" (if I might use the expression) people that some find objectionable, I find unchristian to the core.

Dear Bob,

Forgive me as well! I understand the point you are making, but I believe you have taken your arguments a bit too far.

Apart from the issue of the quality of the work and the like, the fact remains that iconography has its several schools, a number of which reflect on the traditions of Particular Churches, including the Western Church, the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian and other Churches. There are also, as you well know, iconographic schools within the Byzantine tradition itself, including the "heart-rending" East Slavic tradition, the more "stern, intellectual" Greek tradition and the like.

In addition, the icons of individuals who have not yet been glorified (or who may never be glorified) is well within the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

One contemporary example is that of the icons of the Russian soldier martyred by the Chechens, Eugene Rodionov. The ROC won't glorify him, but allow for his private veneration. The same is true about the priest Daniel Sysoyev. Icons of locally venerated worthies abound in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy - and yes, the "vox populi" is the "vox Dei" in their cases. There are dozens of locally venerated and uncanonized servants of God, many with the title of "Saint" or "Blessed" in the West (such as "Blessed Peter Lombard" and "Blessed Fra Girolamo Savonarola" in the Dominican Order and in Florence).

There is a "synergy," as you know, between the spontaneous veneration of the people of God for the Lord's servants and the formal process of canonization-glorification. Icons of such, well before their glorification, are allowed - recently, the Serbian Orthodox Church actually approved a formal icon of the holy Patriarch Pavel who has not been glorified a saint.

In the Roman Catholic tradition, of course, there is a "reversal" of this procedure where popular devotion may even impede a formal, contemporary canonization process. (For example, the grave of the future St Josaphat was covered in votives and Rome wouldn't move on his Beatification unless they were all removed. The exception is in a cultus of "time immemorial" which can lead to "equipollent canonization" - as obtained in the case of many English martyrs whose pictures on the walls of the English college were honoured for decades via private veneration.)

In short, we may write an icon of anyone for private veneration. I have known Jesuits and others who kept an image of Gandhi for private veneration and also Martin Luther King.

In my personal correspondence with Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!), I once asked him about the veneration of non-Orthodox worthies in the Orthodox Church. He replied that the private veneration of those who were not Orthodox and of "good people" is not condemned by Orthodoxy. I asked him about the case of the Anglican King Charles the Martyr (whom I venerate and who many among the Anglican Ordinariate AND former Anglicans who became Orthodox venerate privately). Fr. Meyendorff replied that it "seems to me that King Charles belongs to that category (of good people) and he saw nothing wrong with his veneration.

God does indeed glorify His saints, but the Spirit does inspire their pre-glorification veneration through popular, private devotion. Another example is when the ROC recently glorified an Orthodox Saint by extending his local cultus to the entire Russian Church. The only thing the Synod wanted to know was whether the local saint's veneration had spontaneously extended to other eparchies. When that was confirmed, the Synod formally approved/glorified the saint for veneration in the entire ROC.

So the writing of icons of people who are not yet glorified, or who may never be formally glorified for public, liturgical veneration - for private devotion - is quite in keeping with historic Christian practice.

So is the practice of even "adopting" saints from other, even heretical, groups, including, yes, the Arians - as Father Holweck discusses in his Forward to his Dictionary of Saints. In some cases, the biography and even the names of some of these saints are altered to "cover up" their backgrounds and the like (such as the "St Lupus" of Novae in Moesia - today's Swishtow in Bulgaria - who was none other than the Apostle to the Goths and Bible-translator Ulfilas).

So the artist under discussion here has every right to produce the kind of art he does. We, on the other hand, have every right not to purchase it, if we don't like it. It doesn't do anything for me although he certainly does have a following for whom it does. Western Christians who are not used to iconography of any kind might even be inspired by his work to investigate real iconography and develop much further in their outlook on iconography - or not.

Again, we may or may not be inspired by Coptic and Ethiopian iconography. A friend for whom I once purchased a Greek icon of Christ told me he appreciated it, but didn't like it to the point he could not pray before it as it was too "stern-looking."

And so on, and so forth . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

I get your point however, an "icon" of a naked old bearded man titled "Merlin", as in the magical wizard of folklore? From a professed Catholic religious, supposedly of Byzantine learning? Along with the obvious promotion of unsubstantiated tales of homosexual behavior among known saints? Is there no line that shouldn't be crossed?

Dear Michael,

Yes, I remember that icon of Merlin . . .

Not my cup of tea, and other than the tales about Sir Lancelot, I don't know much about Merlin or the other matter you mention.

I think there should be a line that shouldn't be crossed, but then again so much that occurs in the Catholic Church nowadays crosses any number of lines without higher censure that we shouldn't be surprised.

Ultimately, I don't buy icons from him or Monastery Icons or others.

Alex

Lentz has been the subject of controversy over his near if not over the edge "icons." He has been accused of homoeroticism especially in his icon of Sergius and Bacchus. I won't post a link since it can easily be found on St. Google the Magnificent. He has a unique style and it is more western art, I think, than representative of any genuine eastern iconography.

Dear Charles,

Personally, I'm not against Western artists imitating Eastern styles.

In many instances, that could be better than the kind of religious statuary being produced.

The subjects this artist chooses are certainly controversial (unless you are partial to Merlin in which case please accept my apology . . . ).

We have a UGCC church here in Toronto which has a very unique (or even "ugly") iconographic style. It's all Eastern, to be sure.

But I wouldn't be caught . . . in that church if I could avoid it . . .

Alex