Is the icon of the Father canonical?
The Ancient of Days icon of the Father is perhaps one of the more controversial in existence. It seems everyone has an opinion on this, so I thought I'd clear up misconceptions and explain the canonicity (and history) of the Ancient of Days.
Brief Liturgical Evidence
Saint Hippolytus of Rome
The prophet Daniel here sees no other than the Lord himself, the Lord and God of all, and the Father of Christ Himself.
(“Interpretation on the book of Daniel the Prophet”).
Liturgy
The Octoechos, Tone 5, Midnight Office Canon to the Holy and Life Creating Trinity, Ode 4, first troparion
Daniel was initiated into the mystery of the threefold splendour of the one Dominion when he beheld Christ the Judge going unto the Father while the Spirit revealed the vision."
Note - I do not take this as Patristic proof. But it may be convincing to those in the Nikonian church, and Nicodemos makes a fine argument as well.
We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days.
Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Concilliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father out not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible”
Nicodemos makes a concession at the end, but he notes that the issue is not depicting the Holy Trinity in image, but rather in nature. The Ancient of Days icon makes no pretense to depict the nature of the Father.
Saint John Damascene
Abraham saw not the nature of God, for no man ever saw God, but the image of God, and falling down he adored. (Gen. 18.2) Josua saw the image of an angel, (Jos. 5.14) not as he is, for an angel is not visible to bodily eyes, and falling down he adored, and so did Daniel. Yet an angel is a creature, and servant, and minister of God, not God. And he worshipped the angel not as God, but as God's ministering spirit.
What Daniel saw [in Dan. 7] was not the nature of God, ...but the type and the image of the future One Who was to become thus as incarnate. For the invisible Son and Word of God was about to become man in truth, in order to unite to our nature.
This is an extremely important passage from Saint John's essays defending the holy icon. Indeed, a large portion of his (and other iconodules) defense of veneration was incarnational. Essentially, that Jesus Christ can be depicted as He was man, and therefore icons are valid. This is, of course, correct. But doesn't it disprove the images of the Ancient of Days as the Father? Not quite. Note the Saint's wording.
He states that Daniel saw the image of God. A vision of One who was to become incarnate. So this throws a wrench in things - how could Daniel see the image of God before the Incarnation? Because what he was seeing wasn't the Incarnational God - that is metaphysically impossible. He was seeing something symbolic, something allegorical.
Does this remind us of another icon? One universally loved in Nikonian and Ancient Orthodox circles?
Andrei Rublev's Trinity, and others like it, are fundamentally similar in theory to the Ancient of Days icon. The repulsion of many Orthodox to the so-called New Testament Trinity (including the Father as the Ancient of Days, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as a Dove) is natural, given the (incorrect) assumptions that it derives only from Western religious art.
But these two icons both show, in terms of the Father, an image. A non-incarnational image. When one sees Andrei Rublev's Trinity icon, no believer thinks it is depicting the nature of the Trinity. It is rather assumed to be a symbol. And we gladly bow down, cross ourselves, and venerate it. The Ancient of Days is the same way. It is not depicting the Nature of the Father - after all, only the Incarnation allows us to depict the nature of Christ given His Humanity. It is a symbol for the Father. And it is profoundly holy and indeed those who condemn it are anathematized by a Council.
The Stoglav Council and the 1666-1667 Council
Stoglav Council (1554)
Ivan was against the painting of any icons depicting the Father as the Ancient of Days. He, and any who would follow him, were officially in error.
So this holy council blessed the icons. Case closed? Not so much.
The Robber Council of 1666-1667
This infamous council anathematized the ancient rite of Christianity, passed down from the Byzantine empire, anathematized the ancient two-fingered sign of the cross, and anathematized, besides all Orthodox saints and Christians in Russia prior to the innovations, Saint Avvakum and the Pustozersk Martyrs.
It accused the Stoglav Council and St. Macarius of ignorance and naivete. Of course, later studies proved that the Old Rite and Sign of the Cross were in fact the ancient Byzantine rite, with little to no editions, and the Greek reforms were innovative.
It also anathematized depictions of the Father.
This council was, of course, anathematized in 1554, by the anathematizations of the Stoglav Council, among other Councils.
Is it enough to say that this council does not apply? Even a member of the Nikonian church must see the obvious: that this Council holds no weight. But what does this have to do with modern perceptions of canonicity? Quite a lot, particularly in the way the Synodal church seemed to flagrantly disobey this council's canons.
The above is a typical post-Petrine Synodal icon of the Trinity. It is uncanonical, deriving from Western Renaissance art, but it does depict the Father as the Ancient of Days. Indeed, the Nikonians, even though they were westernizing, saw their own errors, perhaps unconsciously.
This concludes this post. I hope it was informative, and entertaining.
Comments
Post a Comment