What about depicting angels in icons? Aside from the Book of Revelation
where the visions are of different character, it seems that the angels were
seen by the human eye  at least in the following cases: Raphael (Book of
Tobias), Gabriel ( the Annunciation), when an angel appears to Joseph (2
times, I think), when an angel appears to the shepherds, when an angel
appeared to Zacharias in the Temple, when the angel appeared to the Myrrh
Bearers, when an angel appeared to Abraham at the "sacrifice" of Isaac and
at the Hospitality. Now since in these instances angels were seen by people
awake, does this justify our depicting them in icons, individually as in the
cases of Gabriel and Raphael, and generically in the cases where the
Scriptures merely say "an angel"? Has the Archangel Michael ever been seen
by "human eyes"? And what about Guardian Angels?

In Christ,

Joachim Wertz

From: antiquariu@...
Reply-To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:55:28 EST
To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Iconography, was: a variety of other
things


In a message dated 3/3/2003 1:55:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mikeniki@... writes:


> Wasn't it the Sto Glaviy Sobor in the Russian Church which explicitly
> forbids depiction of icons of God the Father?  That icons can only
> depict what human eye had seen and no one had seen God the Father.  A
> priests reads quietly prayers at liturgy, what do they say about God the
> Father ?
>

Hmmm...  I guess those insensitive iconographers in the Holy Land should
have
paid more attention to what a Russian Sobor would do several centuries
later...

Love,

Vladimir Hindrichs


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT

Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With the down fall of Communism, MP did not repent of
Sergianism and continues to be a member in WCC.

      Michael N.


From: Hristofor <hristofor@...>
Reply-To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [orthodox-synod] (Under Soviet Rule Was Met.Anastassy's Last Will)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:16:25 -0500

vkozyreff wrote:

  >I say:
  >
  >This is irrelevant. If I had lived under Soviet rule, possibly I
  >would have been a sergianist.
  >

That is a very interesting statement. You admit, that *even you* might
have been a sergianist, i.e. an apologist for the Soviets, had you been
in the USSR during those times.

Hello! That is an important part of the argument. You were in the West,
so like most hyphenated Russians living Abroad, we all despise
sergianism. *They*, the poor Russians in the Soviet Union, did not have
that luxury of freedom. We can hypothesize for ages how any  one of
might have reacted had we been faced with the grimness of Soviet
reality. But that fact is, we weren't there and we can never know. So,
perhaps we should be at least more understanding of those that were.

Hristofor


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

>You did not answear my question, Fr. Alexander, but
>took them personaly and started hitting me with a
>stick.

I didn't see a question addressed to me--I believe you were asking Fr.
Stefan something.

But you did bring up the Council of the Hundred Chapters as an authority,
so I replied to that postion of your post.




>Answer my question, please?
>
>Who is "Vethiy Den'mi" that we sing on the holiday of
>Meeting of our Lord" I believe?  Isn't it our Savior?

Of course the "Ancient of Days" refers to Our Savior--the stikhiras of the
Feast say "Today the Elder Symeon takes in his hands the Ancient of Days. . ."

However, the original question was not about the Ancient of Days, but about
depictions of God the Father in general.

Stephen, too, is wrong here. Because on the Kursk-Root Icon, the Icon at
the top is not labeled "Ancient of Days" and does not have the halo used on
Icons of Christ--but it is clearly labeled "Gospod' Savaoth" and the halo
is a double square halo (making it have eight points).

There are iconic examples of the depiction of the Lord Sabaoth (as an old
man) going back to before the 14th century in Russia.

And--in the Church Abroad an icon of God the Father as an old man
miraculously renewed itself in the Convent of the Vladimir Icon of the
Mother of God in Shanghai, and was deeply venerated as a miracle-working
icon by Metropolitan Philaret, St. John of Shanghai and the entire Church
Abroad.



With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

In a message dated 3/4/2003 1:04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, wertz@...
writes:


> What about depicting angels in icons? Aside from the Book of Revelation
> where the visions are of different character, it seems that the angels were
> seen by the human eye  at least in the following cases: Raphael (Book of
> Tobias), Gabriel ( the Annunciation), when an angel appears to Joseph (2
> times, I think), when an angel appears to the shepherds, when an angel
> appeared to Zacharias in the Temple, when the angel appeared to the Myrrh
> Bearers, when an angel appeared to Abraham at the "sacrifice" of Isaac and
> at the Hospitality. Now since in these instances angels were seen by people
> awake, does this justify our depicting them in icons, individually as in
> the
> cases of Gabriel and Raphael, and generically in the cases where the
> Scriptures merely say "an angel"? Has the Archangel Michael ever been seen
> by "human eyes"? And what about Guardian Angels?
>

The Plot Thickens!

Well, if you believe early Byzantine art, angels look suspiciously like
Babylonian sphinxes  -- for example, the seraphim.  The notion of angels has
evolved over time -- the Pan-Semitic form continued the 'terrible seraph'  of
Babylonian antiquity until well into the iconoclastic period.  The warrior
males started appearing in about the 7th and 8th centuries, gradually
becoming sexless, and at least in western art with some greek overtones,
becoming females, reaching their artistic perfection in the PreRaphaelite
period in England.   It's this form which is most pervasive in Western
Thought, at least outside of seminaries.

But then again, we haven't seen any burning bushes either, and I have several
of them on post StoGlav icons.  And should Andrej Rublev have depicted  the
oask of Mambre only, since we know that that was and is seeable?

I don't really care.  I accept icons as a means of opening up my small mind
and heart, and looking into heaven.  I find icons highly capable of putting
me into a prayerful state of mind (a la window into heaven).  When I say my
prayers, I really don't debate whether St Luke did the prototype, and I have
no problem with the outpourings of faith that have given us three-armed
Madonnas, fly-fishing monks, dog-headed saints, warrior Ukies, triangular
halos, or any of a number of other symbolic devices, because they are
outpourings of faith, and despite the cringing on the part of some,
allegorical.  Just because the state of the art had not advanced much beyong
flat portraiture doesn't mean all of our saints were flat, nor that those
that aren't are heretical.  And speaking of things seen and unseen - have any
among us -- Pharisees included -- ever seen a halo, triangular or otherwise?
Sounds like an allegorical device to me, just to make sure we see that we are
in fact talking about something holy.   So, Father, Son,  Bird,  or Rublevian
Visitation of Abraham - does it really matter if it fulfills not the StovGlav
functions, but some earlier one -- window into heaven and facilitator of a
prayerful state?  Besides, when did we ever come up with the idea of temporal
infallibility?  The StoGlav has already been overtaken by events on a number
of its theses, like triple Alleluias, washing, shaving, etc.   I now
understand where the inspiration for some of our Russophiles comes from.

Love,

Vladimir Hindrichs


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wed. Feb. 20th (Orth. cal.)  < 2nd watch> + St. Leo of Catania

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am signing off, that is , I won't be checking in for news,
slamming, gossip, messages, until after Pascha.  I suggest that
we ALL might take a break from this soul-robbing medium, and
we will all be very busy too.  Have a salvific journey to the Lord's
Pascha.  And please forgive me for; I've offended, been
negligent, not-loved, judged, sowed & inspired discord, gloated,
resented,  been envious, proud, etc. etc. etc.

in Christ,
sinful, unworthy
priest Dmitry Wieber
St. Juliana of Lazarevo Russian Orthodox Church
Santa Fe, (yep, still here) New Mexico U.S. of A.
505-438-3225

What date was Pascha on in the year 1987?

> What date was Pascha on in the year 1987?

JRS: April 6 (Julian), April 19 (Gregorian).

In Christ
Fr. John R. Shaw

Dear List,

I know that this is off-topic but I think that as Christians we
cannot stay indifferent to the cynical destruction of a whole
population

In Christ,
Irina Pahlen


For background info, Thorne Anderson was a journalism professor in
the US,has a graduate degree from the University of Missouri in
photojournalism and has lived and worked in the U.S., Far East and
Eastern Europe. He is now living in Belgrade with Kael Alford, who is
also a photojournalist.
>
They have both been published widely in publications ranging from
charity newsletters to Newsweek to the New York Times. I give you
this background mainly to show that he is not just some lefty liberal
who doesn't know what he is talking about and/or is easily led by
Iraqi propaganda)

Subject: Home in Belgrade
From: Thorne Anderson
February 12, 2003
> >
Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq,
but this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In
all my time in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat
of an impending attack by the United States, I never met a single
Iraqi who had a harsh word for me. *Iraqis are very good at doing why
I would want to go back to Iraq, as I am committed and already
anxious to do. It just seems to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is
where I might best play a role in making a small difference.

I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines while in Iraq, but
that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I do what I can
to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of stories those
big magazines do, but *ultimately their stories are nearly worthless
at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the
Middle East I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with
other corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but
the bulk of my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media
and in supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find
some time soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts.

There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war
with Iraq. *What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is
already at war in Iraq. *I made two trips last month into the "no-fly
zone" created by the U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq.
Actually it would be better named the "only we fly" zone or the "we
bomb" zone. "We" refers to the United States who does almost all of
the flying and bombing (France pulled out years ago, and Britain is
largely a nominal participant). There is another no-fly zone in the
north, which the U.S. says it maintains to protect the Kurds, but
while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it
does nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally)
from flying into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish
communities > there.
>
> Turkey 's bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. *The U.S.
has been bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the
past 12 years. *There were seven civilians killed in these bombings
about two weeks ago, and I'm told of more civilians last week, but
I'm sure that didn't get much or perhaps any press in the U.S. It is
estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account
the effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the
bombing. The U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this
radioactive material in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo)
since 1991. Some of the DU is further contaminated with other
radioactive particles including Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps
the most carcinogenic of all radioactive materials, and these
particles are now beginning to show up  in ground water samples.
>
I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi
hospitals.  Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq , cancer rates have
increased nearly six fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and
consequent levels of DU are most severe. The most pronounced
increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney, and thyroid cancers
associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).*But the most
lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The toll of
the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the past
decade in the U.S. press. *I have seen a few references to the
sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly
discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government
statements rather than on the statistics of international agencies.
My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the
deaths of thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply
not true. The Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the
deaths of *more than a million* children under the age of five. But
lets put that figure aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the
Iraqi government, and let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports
which blame the sanctions directly for the excess deaths of
approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and nearly a
million Iraqis of all ages.
>
> We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after
the September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty
figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a
country with one tenth the population of the United States and
perhaps we can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already
been inflicted on the Iraqi people in the past decade.
>
> The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration from
diarrhoea caused by water-borne illnesses, which are amplified by the
intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities
by the United States. *The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment
facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just
before the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991,
Dept. of Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,"
goes into great detail about how the destruction of water treatment
facilities and their subsequent impairment by the sanctions regime
will lead to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." I
can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan.
>
> Cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in
Iraq) are now quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are
rampant, and immunities to all types of disease are extremely low.
Even those lucky children who manage to get a sufficient daily
caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea. Around 4,000 children
die every month from starvation and preventable disease in Iraq -- a
six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
>
> Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of
hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions.
In a hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-
year-old child. After the boy's circumcision ceremony, the child was
found to have a congenital disease, which inhibits his blood's
ability to clot, which results in excessive bleeding. The child
encountered further complications when he took a fall and sustained a
head injury which was slowly drowning his brain in his own blood. In
any other country the boy would simply take regular doses of a drug
called Factor 8, and he could then lead a relatively normal life. But
an order for Factor 8 was put "on hold" by the United States
(prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could only
watch the child die.
>
> Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium,
and the destruction of Iraq 's health and sanitation infrastructure
that are the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq.
>
> The situation is so bad that Dennis Halliday, the former
Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in Iraq, took the dramatic step
of resigning his position in protest at the sanctions. "We are in the
process of destroying an entire society," Halliday wrote. "It is as
simple and terrifying as that.  It is illegal and immoral." And
Halliday isn't alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned
in protest and went so far as to describe the sanctions as genocide.
These are not left-wing radicals. These are career bureaucrats who
chose to throw away their careers at the UN rather than give tacit
support to unethical policies driven by the United States.
>
> Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror
a new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be
just the beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the
Middle East and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Israel and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware
of how the fragile politics and powers outside Iraq can be
dramatically unsettled by a U.S. invasion within Iraq.
>
> It's easy to imagine an impending tragedy of enormous proportion
before us, and I ask myself who must step up and take responsibility
for stopping it.
>
> Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is
equally clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the
U.S. government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for
war.
>
> So I feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to
do whatever we can with our individually small but collectively
powerful means to change the course of our government's policy. I try
to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the future, and I don't want to
be in the position where I reflect on the enormous tragedies of the
beginning of the 21st century and admit that I did nothing at all to
recognize or prevent them.
>
> I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family
who are living in the U.S. , in a media environment which does very
little to effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to
encourage ordinary people to participate in making a change. I
imagine this letter may sound like the political rant of some kind of
extremist or anti-American dissident. But that's not how it feels to
me. This doesn't feel like a political issue to me so much as it
feels like a personal issue. I am appalled on a very human level at
the suffering, which U.S. policy is already inflicting and I am
terrified by the prospects for an even more chaotic and violent
future.
>
> And let's be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S.
government pushing for war say they are doing so to promote
democracy, to protect the rights of minorities, and to rid the region
of weapons of mass destruction.  But is the U.S. threatening to
attack Saudi Arabia or a host of other U.S. allies, which have
similarly un-democratic regimes?
>
> How many of us would advocate going to war with Turkey over the
brutal repression of its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq?
And do we expect the U.S. to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have
hundreds of nuclear weapons? Let's remember that leaders in the
previous weapons inspection team in Iraq had declared that 95% of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities were destroyed. And
let's not forget that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using
chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had
nothing to say about it. On the contrary, at that time President
Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to normalize diplomatic relations,
to support its war with Iran, and to offer subsidies for preferential
trade with Iraq . That envoy arrived in Baghdad on the very day that
the UN confirmed Iraq 's use of chemical weapons, and he said
absolutely nothing about it. That envoy, by the way, was Donald
Rumsfeld.
>
> While Iraq probably has very little weaponry to actually threaten
the United States, they do have oil. According to a recent survey of
the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in southern Iraq, they may even
have the world's largest oil reserves, surpassing those of Saudi
Arabia.
>
> Let's be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can,
in good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to
control its oil.*
>
> I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see
the place, as I have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could
see Iraq as a nation of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters,
teachers, doctors, mechanics, and window washers, and not simply as a
single cartoonist villain. I genuinely believe that my view of Iraq
is a view that would sit comfortably in mainstream America if most
Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes and not simply through
the eyes of a media establishment which has simply got used to
ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign
policy aims.
>
> While the American media fixates on the evils of the "repressive
regime of Saddam Hussein," both real and wildly exaggerated, how
often are we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more
than 150,000 were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman,
estimated 200,000). I simply do not believe that most Americans could
come face-to-face with the Iraqi people and say from their hearts
that they deserve another war.
>
> I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection
of the most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful.
I believe in the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving
international conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values,
and they are exactly the values that are most imperilled by present
U.S. policy. That's why, as a citizen of the United States and as a
member of humanity, I can't rest easily so long as I think there is
something, anything, that I can do to make a difference.
>
> Love,>
> Thorne

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, larry most wrote:
> Oh, I forgot, I sort of cringe when I see in some Orthodox
Churches the Ikon of God the Father, as an old man with a triangular
halo.

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, StefanVPavlenko wrote:
> Have you ever been at Mar Sabba's outside Jerusalem. In their main
Cathedral the on the walls are depicted the Trinity as you
pejoratively describe.

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Michael Nikitin wrote:
> Wasn't it the Sto Glaviy Sobor in the Russian Church which
explicitly forbids depiction of icons of God the Father?

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote:
> Take a good look at the "Odigitria" of the Russian Diaspora-- the
Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God.  At the top you will see a
beautiful icon of God the Father, added during the time of Ivan IV,
long after the Stoglavyj Sobor.  Should we throw out the Kursk-Root
Icon as "heretical"?

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, StephenATL <sbu@b...> wrote:
> I would beg to differ Father. He who is pictured is Christ, the
"Ancient of Days", not God the Father. The Church does strictly
forbid the depiction of God the Father in icons......... He who has
never been seen by any man, cannot be depicted in any image.

There are really *two* questions in this thread: 1) is the icon
prototype of God the Father portrayed as an old man desirable, and 2)
how should we regard old icons of this type, when we encounter them?

With respect to the first question, our parish had a recent
experience with the issue.  Our east wall includes, at its apex,
Christ the Ancient of Days.  When the design was first submitted for
review in Jordanville, this element received considerably scrutiny
to ensure that it was indeed *Christ* that was being depicted, not
the Father. Reference was made to a composition of this type (of
Christ) by Archbishop Alipy in a church in Cleveland, and Frs. Andrei
and Luke signed off.  When shown the design, Bishop Kyrill expressed
the same concerns and question.  Based on our experience, and
conversations with a number of iconographers in the ROCOR, I suspect
that someone wanting a contemporary composition of God the Father as
an old  man in their church might have some difficultly finding a
willing iconographer and/or an episcopal blessing, both because of
the theological issues implicit in the prototype, and the potential
for stumbling sensitive parishioners.

That said, it is indisputable that icons of the prototype in question
have been around for a long time, and been the subjects of much
veneration (as have a number of icons written in a modernistic style,
that stream myrrh and are associated with miracles . . .).  I think
that the second question was succinctly answered, in another context,
by St. John of SF, when he was asked about old icons written in an
egregiously Latinate style.  His instuctions were something along the
lines of don't get any more like that, but don't stir up trouble by
crusading against such icons when they have enjoyed long veneration.

In IC XC,

Priest James Baglien

Thank you

At 07:13 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:

> > What date was Pascha on in the year 1987?
>
>JRS: April 6 (Julian), April 19 (Gregorian).
>
>In Christ
>Fr. John R. Shaw
>
>
>Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

IMPORTANT NOTICE!

To California Victims of Religious Childhood Sexual Abuse:

A new law took effect in California on January 1, 2003 that allows clergy
abuse victims a one-year window to sue church institutions, regardless of how
long ago the abuse occurred. Senate Bill 1779 extends the state's statute of
limitation for religious childhood sexual abuse, but only during calendar
year 2003. If you believe that you may be entitled to sue under this new law,
contact a personal injury attorney immediately. THE CLOCK IS RUNNING!

The Staff of Pokrov

Melanie Jula Sakoda
<www.pokrov.org>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is cause for concern.  Have a look at the story this
address will send you to.

http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57753,00.html









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 3/5/2003 2:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jbaglien@... writes:
>
> --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Michael Nikitin wrote:
> > Wasn't it the Sto Glaviy Sobor in the Russian Church which
> explicitly forbids depiction of icons of God the Father?
> ......
>  I suspect that someone wanting a contemporary composition of God the
> Father as
> an old  man in their church might have some difficultly finding a
> willing iconographer and/or an episcopal blessing, both because of
> the theological issues implicit in the prototype, and the potential
> for stumbling sensitive parishioners.
>



Russia's main cathedral, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, has
an enormous icon of the Lord God Sabaoth in the main dome, over 100 feet
wide, where God the Father is portrayed as an old man.  Metropolitan St.
Philaret of Moscow played an integral part in helping to plan the Cathedral,
working closely with the architect Konstantine Ton, influencing such design
decisions as the octagonal chapel-like iconastasis and choosing the subjects
of the sculpture frieze on the cathedral's exterior.  Furthermore, this
cathedral was built during the "Russian Renassiance," when Russian church
architecture, iconography, music, and ecclesiastical art were at their
height.  Thus, if at one point depictions of God the Father as an old man
were outlawed in Russia, this later changed.

-Nick Zaharov
PS..In the 16th Century the Russian Church also banned and halted the
construction of "tent-style" churches, such as St. Basil's (Protection) on
Red Square.  Despite this, our Church Abroad has a few examples of such
church types:  Jordanville Cathedral and Transfiguration Cathedral in Los
Angeles, the construction of the latter still being unfinished........



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 3/5/2003 2:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jbaglien@... writes:
>
> --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Michael Nikitin wrote:
> > Wasn't it the Sto Glaviy Sobor in the Russian Church which
> explicitly forbids depiction of icons of God the Father?
> ......
>  I suspect that someone wanting a contemporary composition of God the
> Father as
> an old  man in their church might have some difficultly finding a
> willing iconographer and/or an episcopal blessing, both because of
> the theological issues implicit in the prototype, and the potential
> for stumbling sensitive parishioners.
>



Russia's main cathedral, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, has
an enormous icon of the Lord God Sabaoth in the main dome, over 100 feet
wide, where God the Father is portrayed as an old man.  Metropolitan St.
Philaret of Moscow played an integral part in helping to plan the Cathedral,
working closely with the architect Konstantine Ton, influencing such design
decisions as the octagonal chapel-like iconastasis and choosing the subjects
of the sculpture frieze on the cathedral's exterior.  Furthermore, this
cathedral was built during the "Russian Renassiance," when Russian church
architecture, iconography, music, and ecclesiastical art were at their
height.  Thus, if at one point depictions of God the Father as an old man
were outlawed in Russia, this later changed.

-Nick Zaharov
PS..In the 16th Century the Russian Church also banned and halted the
construction of "tent-style" churches, such as St. Basil's (Protection) on
Red Square.  Despite this, our Church Abroad has a few examples of such
church types:  Jordanville Cathedral and Transfiguration Cathedral in Los
Angeles, the construction of the latter still being unfinished........



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I got a call yesterday from Frank who said that the their (Schaeffer) segment
will run on 20/20 ABC Network, this Friday, March 7th unless some major event
happens between now and then. Frank also said that his son John was being
sent to Iraq next week and would appreciate prays for him.
James Buchfuehrer

Fr. Alexander, you should know that icon of Theotokos of Kursk-Korenaya is only
a small icon in a middle of an icon with blue cover that we all know. So,
borders had been added in a later times and image of God the Father are of a
relatively new origin.
Subdeacon Kirill
  "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...> wrote:


>You did not answear my question, Fr. Alexander, but
>took them personaly and started hitting me with a
>stick.

I didn't see a question addressed to me--I believe you were asking Fr.
Stefan something.

But you did bring up the Council of the Hundred Chapters as an authority,
so I replied to that postion of your post.




>Answer my question, please?
>
>Who is "Vethiy Den'mi" that we sing on the holiday of
>Meeting of our Lord" I believe?  Isn't it our Savior?

Of course the "Ancient of Days" refers to Our Savior--the stikhiras of the
Feast say "Today the Elder Symeon takes in his hands the Ancient of Days. . ."

However, the original question was not about the Ancient of Days, but about
depictions of God the Father in general.

Stephen, too, is wrong here. Because on the Kursk-Root Icon, the Icon at
the top is not labeled "Ancient of Days" and does not have the halo used on
Icons of Christ--but it is clearly labeled "Gospod' Savaoth" and the halo
is a double square halo (making it have eight points).

There are iconic examples of the depiction of the Lord Sabaoth (as an old
man) going back to before the 14th century in Russia.

And--in the Church Abroad an icon of God the Father as an old man
miraculously renewed itself in the Convent of the Vladimir Icon of the
Mother of God in Shanghai, and was deeply venerated as a miracle-working
icon by Metropolitan Philaret, St. John of Shanghai and the entire Church
Abroad.



With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear All

"The Great Lent is often called a "spiritual spring", reflecting the
changes that take place in nature during this period of time, and awakening
our souls from a sinful sleep to revive and blossom under the shining rays
of Christ's glorious Resurrection. Since the Great Lent is the most
important time of the entire church year, preparing the faithful for the
joyous "feast of feasts and triumph of triumphs", the Church prepares us
for this lent gradually, and leads us through this lent gradually and
purposefully, in order that we may gain maximum benefit from it for the
salvation of our souls. Thus, having taught us, in the preceding two
Sundays, the humility of the publican and the repentance of the prodigal
son, on this Sunday the Church leads us to the third step of preparation
for the Great Lent - and that is the fear of God.

And so before us unfolds the awesome image of the Last Judgment. First of
all, we are amazed by the boundless sea of people. And we must be keenly
aware that we, too, are among them. We try to find ourselves there, we try
to determine our own place in accordance with our spiritual condition." (
From the writings of Archbishop  Andrew of Novo-Diveyevo).

I sincerely & humbly ask forgiveness for my short comings which are many.
If I have offended you in any way in the past year please forgive me & I
ask for your prayers, especially in this Lenten period that is about to
start.

unworthy protodeacon Basil from Canberra

Late Breakaway News:

Just perusing the articles in Vertograd--and came across an announcement
that Bishop Gregory had awarded Fr. Dionysios MacGowan the gold pectoral cross.

Now--that's a fast track in the ROAC!

In the Russian tradition, the gold pectoral cross is the **fourth** award
given to priests for exemplary service.

The first is the "nabedrennik," the second -- the purple skufya, the third
is the purple kamilavka, and the fourth is the gold cross.

Typically, about three years pass between awards, so the gold cross is
rarely awarded at less that 10-12 years of exemplary service, and,
frequently at 20 or more years (how long did Fr. Stephen Fraser wait to get
his gold pectoral cross in the ROCOR--25 years after ordination?)

Fr. Dionisy was ordained at the end of July, 2001, so he has less than two
years of service.

Perhaps he'll be jumped another three awards (archpriest, epigonation, and
jeweled cross) and be made a mitred archpriest in another couple of years.

P.S. Breakaway groups are notorious for fast-tracking awards and bumping up
clergy in rank. Keeps 'em happy, I guess.


With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

As a resident of California, the state that has the highest gas prices in
the nation, I am astonished that not enough is being said about the factors
influencing the sharp rise in gas prices. People are being told that the
rise is due to fears about the war in Iraq, refinery problems, oil costs, etc.

What about simple gouging?

Today, on the AP wire, a story appeared, which contained the following
information:


>Over the last 14 months, the difference between the cost of crude and the
>wholesale price of gasoline, as well as the difference between the
>wholesale and retail prices of gasoline, have widened. The margins include
>the cost of doing business and any profit.


>Dealer margins have ranged between 8 cents and 12 cents for each gallon of
>gasoline sold in California, Energy Commission spokesman Rob Schlichting
>said. As of Monday, the average was 14 cents.


>For refiners, the margin has ranged between 29 cents and 33 cents. As of
>Monday, refiners averaged a 51 cent margin, according to state data.


>"This is higher, but I would hesitate to call that all profit,"
>Schlichting said.

==========================

Well, I say, if it's not all profit--what is it?

And- why isn't anyone mentioning record oil company profits?

Here is an article from a month ago:




===========================================



"Web posted Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Exxon Mobil has surge in profits

By Sudeep Reddy
KRT Business News

DALLAS -- Exxon Mobil Corp. reported sharply higher fourth-quarter earnings
Jan. 30 amid rising oil and natural gas prices, offering some hope of
recovery for a sector that has been battered by the weak economy.

Irving-based Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil firm with
a major presence in Alaska, reported a fourth-quarter profit of $4.09
billion, or 60 cents a share. That was up 53 percent from the final quarter
of 2001, when global demand for refined products had been severely weakened
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The company showed its first increase in profit since the second quarter of
2001, despite difficulties in some business lines.

"It was nice to see the company getting back on track," said Fadel Gheit,
an analyst at Fahnestock & Co. "But they're still suffering from weak
refining and marketing margins and chemicals."

Across the sector, integrated oil companies are expected to show stronger
fourth-quarter results compared with the final quarter of 2001, due in part
to higher oil and natural gas prices.

Exxon Mobil's revenue in the fourth quarter was $56.2 billion compared with
$47.7 billion a year earlier."


======================

Exxon-Mobil is complaining about "weak refining margins" at a time when
they are 20 cents a gallon higher than ever?

Something here stinks.







With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

Kirill Bart wrote:

>Fr. Alexander, you should know that icon of Theotokos of Kursk-Korenaya is
>only a small icon in a middle of an icon with blue cover that we all know.
>So, borders had been added in a later times and image of God the Father
>are of a relatively new origin.
>Subdeacon Kirill


Kirill should know that I was the person honored to give the keynote speech
at the 700th Anniversary of the Kursk-Root Icon in 1995--titled "The
Historical and Religious Significance of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother
of God for the Russian Diaspora."

This was published as a brochure and published also in "Orthodox Tradition."

So, I believe I am as familiar as anyone with the history of the Kursk-Root
icon.

This icon was brought to Moscow at the direction of Tsar Feodor Ivanovich
in 1597, who commanded that the additions to the Icon--namely the Image of
the Lord Sabaoth and the Prophets holding scrolls be made. His Tsaritza,
Irina Feodorovna adorned the Icon with a precious riza.

This was three hundred years after the appearance of the Icon in 1295.

Since the addition, more than four hundred years have passed.

Therefore, calling the image of God the Father "of a relatively new origin"
is  unsubstantiated.


With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

This just goes to show how much influence the Latins had on the Russian
Church.


    Michael N.

From: for4z@...
Reply-To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Iconography, was: a variety of other
things
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:52:27 EST

In a message dated 3/5/2003 2:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jbaglien@... writes:
  >
  > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Michael Nikitin wrote:
  > > Wasn't it the Sto Glaviy Sobor in the Russian Church which
  > explicitly forbids depiction of icons of God the Father?
  > ......
  >  I suspect that someone wanting a contemporary composition of God the
  > Father as
  > an old  man in their church might have some difficultly finding a
  > willing iconographer and/or an episcopal blessing, both because of
  > the theological issues implicit in the prototype, and the potential
  > for stumbling sensitive parishioners.
  >



Russia's main cathedral, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, has
an enormous icon of the Lord God Sabaoth in the main dome, over 100 feet
wide, where God the Father is portrayed as an old man.  Metropolitan St.
Philaret of Moscow played an integral part in helping to plan the Cathedral,
working closely with the architect Konstantine Ton, influencing such design
decisions as the octagonal chapel-like iconastasis and choosing the subjects
of the sculpture frieze on the cathedral's exterior.  Furthermore, this
cathedral was built during the "Russian Renassiance," when Russian church
architecture, iconography, music, and ecclesiastical art were at their
height.  Thus, if at one point depictions of God the Father as an old man
were outlawed in Russia, this later changed.

-Nick Zaharov
PS..In the 16th Century the Russian Church also banned and halted the
construction of "tent-style" churches, such as St. Basil's (Protection) on
Red Square.  Despite this, our Church Abroad has a few examples of such
church types:  Jordanville Cathedral and Transfiguration Cathedral in Los
Angeles, the construction of the latter still being unfinished........



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

In a message dated 28/02/03 15:27:55 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...
writes:


> Others, and no doubt Vladimir Moss among them, would also argue that
> there could still be no Apostolic succession from any of the
> Patriarchate bishops, so therefore the new bishops would "still be the
> same MP".
>
> Right?
>

Wrong. The new bishops would be ordained by True Orthodox bishops, of whom
there are still some left in the world, thank God.

Vladimir Moss


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 28/02/03 16:42:19 GMT Standard Time,
larrymost2002@... writes:


> I've read quite a bit of Russian History, and unless it is all lies, not all
> of those Tsars were wonderful. As a matter of fact, after reading the
> diaries of Nicholas and Alexandria, how could any nation expect one man, no
> matter how much of a Believer he is, to be able to totally govern a nation
> of that size and complexity. The Tsar part I would welcome, but the "Toltal
> Autocrat" part, is something that I would wonder about. I know, that's the
> modern American in me speaking. We should discuss more on this later.
>

The prophecies say that the future Tsar will be a spiritual man.

Russia after the Third World War, according to Starets Nektary, will be poor
materially but rich spiritually. I don't see why the future Tsar should not
be able to govern such a nation, especially one chastened by suffering and
seeking the True Faith in repentance.

Vladimir Moss


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, the readers of this list should be used to low ranking clergy
and non clergy members thinking they know better than long-standing
high-ranking clergy!

I remember your address, Fr. Alexander. It was quite a
wonderful, beautiful event, the 700th anniversary of our Hodigitria's
miraculous icon... joyous, uplifting, despite a frigid early winter
blast, and memorable.

In Christ's love,
Elizabeth

--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
<lebedeff@w...> wrote:
> Kirill Bart wrote:
>
> >Fr. Alexander, you should know that icon of Theotokos of
Kursk-Korenaya is
> >only a small icon in a middle of an icon with blue cover that we
all know.
> >So, borders had been added in a later times and image of God the
Father
> >are of a relatively new origin.
> >Subdeacon Kirill
>
>
> Kirill should know that I was the person honored to give the keynote
speech
> at the 700th Anniversary of the Kursk-Root Icon in 1995--titled "The
> Historical and Religious Significance of the Kursk-Root Icon of the
Mother
> of God for the Russian Diaspora."
>
> This was published as a brochure and published also in "Orthodox
Tradition."
>
> So, I believe I am as familiar as anyone with the history of the
Kursk-Root
> icon.
>
> This icon was brought to Moscow at the direction of Tsar Feodor
Ivanovich
> in 1597, who commanded that the additions to the Icon--namely the
Image of
> the Lord Sabaoth and the Prophets holding scrolls be made. His
Tsaritza,
> Irina Feodorovna adorned the Icon with a precious riza.
>
> This was three hundred years after the appearance of the Icon in
1295.
>
> Since the addition, more than four hundred years have passed.
>
> Therefore, calling the image of God the Father "of a relatively new
origin"
> is  unsubstantiated.
>
>
> With love in Christ,
>
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

Vladimir Moss wrote:

> The prophecies say that the future Tsar will be a spiritual man.
>
> Russia after the Third World War, according to Starets Nektary, will
be poor
> materially but rich spiritually. I don't see why the future Tsar
should not
> be able to govern such a nation, especially one chastened by
suffering and
> seeking the True Faith in repentance.

JRS: These "prophecies" are mostly hearsay. Even if they were clearly
documented, one still cannot treat them as if they were Divine
revelation.

If, by "starets Nektary", you mean the late Archimandrite Nektary who
was in the Holy Land, then I knew him myself. I heard some of the
remarks he made while back in Jordanville in the years I was a
seminarian. Some of them could be interpreted in 100 ways (or more) --
and there was still no reason to believe they were inspired in any case.

However, obscure, questionable prophecies are *much* handier to use
than the Scriptures and Canons, aren't they? One can get anything out
of them, as desired...

In Christ
Fr. John R. Shaw

In a message dated 07/03/03 22:26:48 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...
writes:


> JRS: These "prophecies" are mostly hearsay. Even if they were clearly
> documented, one still cannot treat them as if they were Divine
> revelation.
>
> If, by "starets Nektary", you mean the late Archimandrite Nektary who
> was in the Holy Land, then I knew him myself. I heard some of the
> remarks he made while back in Jordanville in the years I was a
> seminarian. Some of them could be interpreted in 100 ways (or more) --
> and there was still no reason to believe they were inspired in any case.
>
> However, obscure, questionable prophecies are *much* handier to use
> than the Scriptures and Canons, aren't they? One can get anything out
> of them, as desired...
>

There is no contradiction between the prophecies I have quoted and the Holy
Scriptures and Canons. Moreover, they come from truly spiritual men, such as
St. Nektary of Optina and Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Elder Theodosy of
Minvody and St. John of Kronstadt. Not to mention St. Seraphim of Sarov.

But of course, if you don't want to believe them, nobody is forcing you to. I
never claimed that they are Holy Scripture. Just don't say that they
contradict Holy Scripture, because they don't. They just contradict your own
idea of how the future will turn out.

Vladimir Moss


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Vladimir Moss wrote:

> There is no contradiction between the prophecies I have quoted and
the Holy
> Scriptures and Canons. Moreover, they come from truly spiritual men,
such as
> St. Nektary of Optina and Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Elder
Theodosy of
> Minvody and St. John of Kronstadt. Not to mention St. Seraphim of
Sarov.

JRS: St. John of Kronstadt is quoted as having predicted there
would "not be a national Poland" -- i.e. that Poland would not become
an independant state again.

Many Orthodox could have wished he had been right, when the
persecutions of the 1920's in the Polish republic began...

> But of course, if you don't want to believe them, nobody is forcing
you to. I
> never claimed that they are Holy Scripture. Just don't say that they
> contradict Holy Scripture, because they don't. They just contradict
your own
> idea of how the future will turn out.

JRS: Note that I never said they "contradict Scripture" -- merely that
they are *not* Divine revelation; agree with them or disagree, one
cannot build on such prophecies.

You speak of them as if they were absolute certainties!

In Christ
Fr. John R. Shaw

Subject: CHURCH BELLS FROM RUSSIA


DEAR BROTHERS IN SERVICE TO OUR LORD,
                 & FRIENDS IN CHRIST,


WE ARE CURRENTLY PUTTING TOGETHER A SHIPMENT OF CHURCH ITEMS FROM MOSCOW.

WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN OFFER OF CHURCH BELLS FROM THE WELL-KNOWN RUSSIAN FIRM
"PYATKOV".
WE HAVE INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF BELLS, WEIGHT, TONE, AND COSTS. IF YOU WISH
TO PLACE AN ORDER WE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE THEM HERE FOR PASCHA.

IF ANYONE HAS INTEREST IN ACQUIRING BELLS FOR THEIR PARISH PLEASE CONTACT ME
DIRECTLY. I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO FORWARD THE INFORMATION TO YOU. WE HOPE
TO DO BUSINESS ON A CONTINUAL BASIS.

WE DO NOT HAVE A FLYER TO SEND OUT AT THE MOMENT - BUT HOPEFULLY SOON.

THANK YOU !   PLEASE PRAY FOR US, FATHER BASIL GRISEL
                     ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE HOLY NEW MARTYRS AND CONFESSORS OF
RUSSIA
                     NORWICH, CONNECTICUT


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear List,

A member of this list (to whom I am grateful) wrote personally to
me: "...addressing Subdeacon Lawrence by his surname, which most of
us would interpret as being disrespectful..."

I would like to apologise to Subdeacon Lawrence. I would like to tell
him and all the members of this list that I did not at all intend in
any way to be disrespectful. I hope nobody will doubt that my
apologies are sincere, especially subdeacon Lawrence himself.

I tried on the contrary to be respectful. Wondering about how I had
to call him, I referred to the way he had signed himself (at least in
one of his recent posts at that time when I started to discuss with
him). I did not know at all that this way of addressing him would be
regarded as disrespectful.

As Archbishop Mark stressed, the ROCOR culture has become very little
Russian (..."he saw it as natural that the Church Abroad has its own
life, its own characteristics, which have developed in these 80
years, and no one should forget them". So I sometimes hesitate in
finding my way, as far as usage is concerned.

"Subdeacon Larry" is certainly an unexpected thing for a Russian to
say, Larry being a nickname. If I were a subdeacon, I would not
expect anybody to call me "subdeacon Volodya". I remember reading
somewhere etiquette recommendations for American orthodox that had
converted from Protestantism. Contrarily to what was acceptable among
the protestants, in the ROCOR, one would not say "Father Bob".
Nevertheless, we Russians, embrace and kiss our priests, which the
protestants, I think, would never do, even if they call them by their
nicknames.

The OCA, as far as it is concerned, has no objection to Father Bob.

April 8, 2002
To: Father Robert Kondratick, Chancellor
rsk@...
Orthodox Church in America
Syosset, NY
Dear Father Bob,

http://www.pokrov.org/petition/OCA/oca4102002.htm

(In the secular world, I never understood how Americans can call
their President "Bill" even when being respectful. This is a question
of culture, of course).

In the future, I will say "Subdeacon Lawrence". I hope this is the
right way.

I hope everybody will agree that our Church must remain Russian, if
it is to return to Russia some day. Etiquette is part of the culture
and culture is also one of the things that Archbishop Mark speaks
about in his famous interview.

In God,

Vladimir Kozyreff

In a message dated 08/03/03 12:45:57 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...
writes:


> > But of course, if you don't want to believe them, nobody is forcing
> you to. I
> > never claimed that they are Holy Scripture. Just don't say that they
> > contradict Holy Scripture, because they don't. They just contradict
> your own
> > idea of how the future will turn out.
>
> JRS: Note that I never said they "contradict Scripture" -- merely that
> they are *not* Divine revelation; agree with them or disagree, one
> cannot build on such prophecies.
>
> You speak of them as if they were absolute certainties!
>

Faith, according to the Holy Scriptures is "the subsistence of things hoped
for, the certainty of things unseen" (Hebrews 11.1). I have faith  - that is,
certain belief - in the prophecies of the saints concerning the resurrection
of Holy Russia through a True Orthodox Tsar who will overthrow almost all the
hierarchs of the official church. You do not have this faith. I do not
condemn you for that - such faith is not obligatory in the same way that
faith in the dogmas of the Church is obligatory. Only time will show which
one of us is right.

Vladimir Moss


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]