Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
APOLOGIA & CANONPart 1 – Aims, History, Critical Review
   Diptych, revealed, ecumenical icon of the Divine Heart of    God the Father Encompassing All Hearts – Infinite Love;  ...
The Divine Heart of            The Consecration (Seal)  God the Father                Prayer to the Father                ...
   (1)   That  God     the   Father   be   paid   the    homage, veneration, and worship due to Him, as the    Almighty;...
   (4) Weekly cenacles of worship, resulting in all graces needed to    habitually live in the Father’s Divine Will;   (...
   Dn 7:25, 8:3-14, 8:24-25, 9:25-27, 12:6-11;   Is 24:16-25, 25:6-12;   Jl 1:2-20, 2:1-27, 3:1-5, 4:1-21;   2 P 3:7;...
   Pre-iconoclasm, icons of God the Father were based on    theophanies/manifestations                         to    Dani...
   Nicaea II decreed that iconoclasm was heresy and that    venerating holy icons was to be encouraged;   Adoration and ...
   After the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)    held the Ecumenical Council of Trent, while the Orthodox   ...
   The Stoglav Council (1st Council; OC) decreed that icons    must retain fidelity to established models when    depicti...
Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela.   11
   The Council of Moscow (2nd Council; OC) approved    icons of God the Father, depicted either independently    or as pa...
   The Great Council of Moscow (3rd Council; OC) forbade    depicting God the Father on holy icons, independently or    a...
   Depicting God the Father on holy icons was legitimate    in the early Church;    ◦ Accepted use by laypersons, iconogr...
   Decrees of Nicaea II remain binding on both RCC and OC;    ◦ Last ecumenical council of the undivided Church;   Subse...
   No impediments exist to depicting God the Father on    holy icons in the RCC;   Precedent for such icons within the R...
Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela.   17
   Council of Trent (RCC)    ◦ “Due honor and veneration are to be given them, not that any      divinity or virtue is be...
   Trent confirmed Nicaea II decrees;   Trent confirmed Nicaea II definition of icons as signs    representing their pro...
   Stoglav Council (OC) – led by St Makarii    ◦ (1) Icons must adhere to established models when depicting God;      (2)...
   In all his writings on holy icons, St John of Damascus    never actually said the words that Stoglav reported;    ◦ He...
   In speaking about God and icons, St John used the    following as basis for his arguments:    ◦ (1) Dt 4:15 – “You hav...
   But St John (1) specifically referred to St Paul’s mention    of the divinity, for context;   (2) Athanasius the Grea...
   (3) St John omitted to refer to Mt 11:27 - “No one    knows the Son except the Father, just as no one knows    the Fat...
   Stoglav established Rublev’s Trinity icon as exemplar. But    this icon had been revealed, according to St Pavel    Fl...
   Council of Moscow (OC) – also led by St Makarii    ◦ (1) Icons of God the Father could be depicted, independently     ...
   Great (Pan-Orthodox) Council of Moscow (OC)    ◦ “From now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be      pai...
   Great Council based its decision on:    ◦ (1) Mt 11:27 – “No one knows the Father except the Son;”    ◦ (2) Is 40:18 –...
   Great Council also said:    ◦ “They paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and      that breath reaches the ...
   But Nicaea II (undivided Church) said:    ◦ (1) “Holy images . . . be set forth in all the holy Churches of God . . . ...
   In effect, the Great Council of Moscow, in its decrees:    ◦ (1) Ruptured with Tradition and the decrees of Nicaea    ...
   Both John Paul II (1999, Letter to artists) and Benedict    XVI (2000, The Spirit of the Liturgy) addressed the issue ...
   Great Council also contradicted itself, in its own decrees, by    first stating that God the Father could never be dep...
   Decrees of the Great Council of Moscow are invalid, because    Church council decrees “cannot be accepted as expressin...
APOLOGIA & CANON
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1

226

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
226
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1"

  1. 1. APOLOGIA & CANONPart 1 – Aims, History, Critical Review
  2. 2.  Diptych, revealed, ecumenical icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father Encompassing All Hearts – Infinite Love; ◦ Actual icon written by Fr. Richard G. Cannuli, O.S.A. Left-hand icon of diptych shows the Divine Heart of God the Father, right-hand icon shows the Consecration (Seal) Prayer to the Father. Icon design and prayer revealed through corporeal theophanies and inner locutions to two Roman Catholics, in 2010-2011; ◦ Main person under spiritual direction. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 2
  3. 3. The Divine Heart of The Consecration (Seal) God the Father Prayer to the Father Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 3
  4. 4.  (1) That God the Father be paid the homage, veneration, and worship due to Him, as the Almighty; (2) Concrete symbol of His infinite love for humanity; ◦ Reminder that the Father exists, especially in this day of generalized fatherlessness; (3) Reciting consecration prayer while venerating His Divine Heart, results in His Fatherly Seal (Rv 3:10-12, 14:1-5); ◦ The Seal of the Father annuls the name, number, mark of the beast (Rv 13:11-18, 14:1-5); ◦ Special graces are given by the Father, to withstand attacks from evil during the Great Chastisement; Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 4
  5. 5.  (4) Weekly cenacles of worship, resulting in all graces needed to habitually live in the Father’s Divine Will; (5) Facilitates joint worship of God the Father by the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, emphasizes urgent need for re-unification; (6) Tangible means of veneration, for reparation and consolation to the Father, for blasphemies against His Divine Heart; (7) More veneration of God the Father increases His Mercy and decreases His Wrath, minimizing the pain, suffering, and duration of the Great Chastisement; ◦ Facilitates humankind’s entry into the New Israel. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 5
  6. 6.  Dn 7:25, 8:3-14, 8:24-25, 9:25-27, 12:6-11; Is 24:16-25, 25:6-12; Jl 1:2-20, 2:1-27, 3:1-5, 4:1-21; 2 P 3:7; Rv 2:10-11, 3:10, 6:5-17, 7:1-17, 8:1-5, 9:1-21, 11:7- 10, 12:7-17, 13:1-18, 14:6-20, 16:17-21, 18:9-23, 20:1- 6; Zech 14:1-21; Zeph 1:2-18, 2:1-15, 3:1-20. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 6
  7. 7.  Pre-iconoclasm, icons of God the Father were based on theophanies/manifestations to Daniel, Elijah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Moses; ◦ The Father was depicted in terms of His energeia, not ousia; ◦ Most icons were destroyed during iconoclasm - Argument was made that venerating icons was idolatry; After iconoclasm, 7th Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church (Nicaea II) addressed veneration of holy icons; ◦ Quinisext Council (Council in Trullo) had only addressed the issue of depicting Christ as a Lamb. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 7
  8. 8.  Nicaea II decreed that iconoclasm was heresy and that venerating holy icons was to be encouraged; Adoration and absolute worship of latreia is reserved for God alone, while veneration and relative worship of proskynesis can be paid to any sign representing its prototype; ◦ “Agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the Church” (Gibbon, 1890, Introduction of images into the Church); Icons are “not like the original with respect to essence, but with respect to hypostasis” (Nicaea II); Those refuting the biblical theophanies were condemned and the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 8
  9. 9.  After the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) held the Ecumenical Council of Trent, while the Orthodox Church (OC) held the Three Councils of Moscow – the Stoglav Council, Council of Moscow, and the Great Council of Moscow. The issue of venerating holy icons was addressed at all these councils. The Council of Trent (RCC) confirmed all decrees of Nicaea II on sacred icons. No prohibitions regarding icons of God the Father were made. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 9
  10. 10.  The Stoglav Council (1st Council; OC) decreed that icons must retain fidelity to established models when depicting God; ◦ St Andrei Rublev’s Trinity icon was considered to exemplify such a model; Sole authority was given to the hierarchy, to determine how representations of God and Jesus Christ could be made; ◦ Based on the reported words of St John of Damascus as, “Do not represent the divinity . . . because the Godhead is simple and indivisible, inaccessible to the eye.” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 10
  11. 11. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 11
  12. 12.  The Council of Moscow (2nd Council; OC) approved icons of God the Father, depicted either independently or as part of the Trinity; ◦ Such icons were considered according to Tradition, especially Athonite tradition; Persons considering icons of the Father as ‘Latin heretical concepts’ were condemned; ◦ St Makarii said that regarding icons of God the Father as heretical was analogous to ascribing to the heresy of the Galatians (Bodianskii, 1858, Chteniia Imperat, Bk II). Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 12
  13. 13.  The Great Council of Moscow (3rd Council; OC) forbade depicting God the Father on holy icons, independently or as part of the Trinity, as the Father was not incarnate; ◦ Based on (1) Mt 11:27 – “No one knows the Father except the Son;” ◦ (2) Is 40:18 – “What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble his?,” ◦ (3) Acts 17:29 – “We ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought;” ◦ (4) St John of Damascus – “Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety;” But the council decreed that the Father could be painted with white hair, from St John’s visions in the Apocalypse. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 13
  14. 14.  Depicting God the Father on holy icons was legitimate in the early Church; ◦ Accepted use by laypersons, iconographers, and ecclesiastical hierarchy; Differences about icons of the Father arose after iconoclasm and persist to this day; Neither the Quinisext Council nor Nicaea II forbade depicting the Father on icons, based on His energeia; Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 14
  15. 15.  Decrees of Nicaea II remain binding on both RCC and OC; ◦ Last ecumenical council of the undivided Church; Subsequent council decrees contradicting those of Nicaea II are invalid, due to (1) Nicaea II having been accepted by both RCC and OC; (2) hermeneutic of continuity; Full subsistence of the universality of the Church, as understood in the early undivided Church, persists in the RCC due to its unbroken Petrine succession (Paul VI, 1964, Lumen Gentium). Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 15
  16. 16.  No impediments exist to depicting God the Father on holy icons in the RCC; Precedent for such icons within the RCC was set in 2004, with enshrinement of the first, revealed icon of the Father at the ‘Jubilee’ Pro-Cathedral of God the Merciful Father in Zaporozhye (Ukraine); ◦ With the specific blessing of John Paul II. No true impediments exist, either, in the OC, to depicting the Father on sacred icons. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 16
  17. 17. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 17
  18. 18.  Council of Trent (RCC) ◦ “Due honor and veneration are to be given them, not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them . . . but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes;” ◦ Nicaea II ◦ “Holy images . . . be set forth in all the holy Churches of God . . . on walls and on doors, in houses and by the highways . . . in proportion as these are continually seen . . . so are the minds of the beholders aroused to the remembrance of and affection for their prototypes;” ◦ Proskynesis was encouraged, “For he who worships an image worships in it the person of him who is represented thereby.” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 18
  19. 19.  Trent confirmed Nicaea II decrees; Trent confirmed Nicaea II definition of icons as signs representing their prototypes; Implicitly confirmed that icons are neither sacraments nor sacramentals, although they can become the latter after being blessed by a member of the clergy. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 19
  20. 20.  Stoglav Council (OC) – led by St Makarii ◦ (1) Icons must adhere to established models when depicting God; (2) St Andrei Rublev’s Trinity as exemplar; ◦ (3) St John of Damascus, “Do not represent the divinity . . . because the Godhead is simple and indivisible, inaccessible to the eye;” Stoglav seems to contradict Nicaea II, but it is not so: ◦ Both Stoglav and Nicaea II banned all depictions of God the Father, based on His ousia - Stoglav banned it explicitly by referring to St John’s words, Nicaea II banned it implicitly by defining icons as representations not of the divine ousia. ◦ Neither Stoglav nor Nicaea II banned depicting the Father based on His energeia. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 20
  21. 21.  In all his writings on holy icons, St John of Damascus never actually said the words that Stoglav reported; ◦ He was misquoted at Stoglav; Close, contextual reading of St John’s De fide orthodoxa and On holy images shows that he never considered the issue of depicting God the Father based on His energeia, because his main focus was (1) Christology rather than Patriology, (2) the divine nature (ousia) rather than the divine energies (energeia); Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 21
  22. 22.  In speaking about God and icons, St John used the following as basis for his arguments: ◦ (1) Dt 4:15 – “You have not seen his likeness;” ◦ (2) Acts 17:29 – “Being, therefore, the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, the device of man;” ◦ (3) Jn 1:18 – “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him;” ◦ (4) Ex 33:20 – “No one shall ever see My face and live, saith the Lord;” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 22
  23. 23.  But St John (1) specifically referred to St Paul’s mention of the divinity, for context; (2) Athanasius the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Palamas, Hippolytus of Rome, John Chrysostom, Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Symeon of Thessalonica defined the visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Moses as theophanic; ◦ These had already been depicted on holy icons; Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 23
  24. 24.  (3) St John omitted to refer to Mt 11:27 - “No one knows the Son except the Father, just as no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him;” ◦ He chose only Jn 1:18 instead; (4) St John directly referred to the nature (ousia) of God, when speaking about the Father, within the context of repeatedly addressing the issue of latreia. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 24
  25. 25.  Stoglav established Rublev’s Trinity icon as exemplar. But this icon had been revealed, according to St Pavel Florensky’s typology of icons; Contrary to widespread belief, Rublev did not replicate the Trinity icon already in existence, and its ‘standard’ Trinitarian interpretation. Under the instruction of St Nikon of Radonezh, Rublev specifically broke with tradition and depicted the three, non-interchangeable, divine Persons (Bunge, 2007, The Rublev Trinity); ◦ Rublev’s Trinity icon was written in honor of St Sergii, who had experienced several theophanies. ◦ Florensky (1996, Iconostasis) himself called St Sergii the true author of Rublev’s Trinity icon. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 25
  26. 26.  Council of Moscow (OC) – also led by St Makarii ◦ (1) Icons of God the Father could be depicted, independently or as part of the Trinity; ◦ (2) In keeping with Tradition, especially Athonite; ◦ (3) “The painters do not represent the Godhead invisible according to His essence, but they portray and represent according to the prophetic visions and the ancient Greek models” Council of Moscow confirmed Nicaea II, despite repeated attempts of some, to this day, to interpret proceedings of this council in terms of sola patristica. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 26
  27. 27.  Great (Pan-Orthodox) Council of Moscow (OC) ◦ “From now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh . . . To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity . . . This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 27
  28. 28.  Great Council based its decision on: ◦ (1) Mt 11:27 – “No one knows the Father except the Son;” ◦ (2) Is 40:18 – “What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble Him?” ◦ (3) Acts 17:29 – “We ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought;” ◦ (4) St John of Damascus – “Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, the unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety;” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 28
  29. 29.  Great Council also said: ◦ “They paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent . . . we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge. It is only in the Apocalypse of St John that the Father can be painted with white hair, for lack of any other possibility, because of the visions contained in it.” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 29
  30. 30.  But Nicaea II (undivided Church) said: ◦ (1) “Holy images . . . be set forth in all the holy Churches of God . . . on walls and on doors, in houses and by the highways . . . For, in proportion as these are continually seen in images and pictures, so are the minds of the beholders aroused to the remembrance of and affection for their prototypes;” ◦ (2) Latreia is reserved for God alone, whereas proskynesis can be paid to any sign representing its prototype; ◦ (3) Icons are “not like the original with respect to essence, but with respect to hypostasis;” ◦ (4) “Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity Himself shaped and impressed them . . . Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them, even before the Incarnation of the Word.” Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 30
  31. 31.  In effect, the Great Council of Moscow, in its decrees: ◦ (1) Ruptured with Tradition and the decrees of Nicaea II, Trent, Stoglav, and the Council of Moscow on holy icons; ◦ (2) Erroneously conflated the divine ousia with energeia; Violated Nicaea II by: ◦ (3) Condemning icons of the Father, to facilitate proskynesis;  Such icons and holy images are valid means of veneration and relative worship to this day, in RCC – hermeneutic of continuity; ◦ (4) Not regarding icons as unlike the original, with regard to essence;  In On the holy icons, St Theodore the Studite confirmed that icons are not like their prototypes, with regard to essence and nature. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 31
  32. 32.  Both John Paul II (1999, Letter to artists) and Benedict XVI (2000, The Spirit of the Liturgy) addressed the issue of false rigidity in sacred art, and the false sacramentalization of icons; Great Council of Moscow also violated Nicaea II when it refuted the visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Moses as theophanic; ◦ These were already considered theophanic by multiple Church Father and later saints, also considered as such by Nicaea II. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 32
  33. 33.  Great Council also contradicted itself, in its own decrees, by first stating that God the Father could never be depicted because He had not become incarnate, then declaring that He could be painted, but with a white beard, according to visions of St John; ◦ Indirect, but explicit, admission by Great Council itself that it was both valid and licit to depict the Father on holy icons, based on His energeia, because the term “Father” refers specifically to the hypostasis of the Almighty, not His divinity. Great Council based its decrees, in part, on what St John of Damascus reportedly said; ◦ Words which he, in fact, never stated in De fide orthodoxa and On holy icons. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 33
  34. 34.  Decrees of the Great Council of Moscow are invalid, because Church council decrees “cannot be accepted as expressing the Tradition of the Church if they contradict the Seventh Ecumenical Council [Nicaea II] as well as the constant practice of the Church since Roman times” (Moss, 2002, The Icon of the Holy Trinity); Great Council itself never declared icons of God the Father to be a heresy.  Sacred paintings of the Father abound in the Kremlin – heart of Orthodoxy; Great Council itself is held by many to be a Robber Council; ◦ Convened by Tsar Alexis primarily to address ‘clergy shortcomings’ and strip the Russian Orthodox Church of her patrimony. Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 34
  35. 35. APOLOGIA & CANON

×