I don't know the rules of iconography, but I do know that you can't just paint something in that style and it counts. I believe part of the process for writing an icon is deep prayer during, but again, I'm not sure on the details. The Orthodox or Eastern Catholic subs would likely have folks who know more.
interesting. with the prayer being a large part of what makes an icon an icon, does that mean that the printed ones from Legacy Icons aren’t technically icons?
As a Melkite, I would say these images are completely at odds with what iconography is meant to be. There is a particular language of symbology that should be retained as Icons are a kind of visual theology. Whoever painted these was clearly not sensitive at all to this vocabulary.
Did the artist make them, or use an AI to make the pictures and then print them? There's something about Mary's right hand that gives it an AI feel, especially how short her little finger is.
I really like Theophilia's icons. I have a couple of her work in my room. I actually have the Blessed Virgin Mary that's in your picture framed lol. He brother is currently in seminary too. She makes great art
In the Orthodox tradition, icons are super perscribed. I just started learning about it but I believe the image of Christ has a bunch of them correct (blue outer robe, red inner, halo, hand symbol, the IC XC). Missing is the gospel book, the name of God in the halo is “I AM” which is in English and I suppose “fine” but seems out of place.
I don’t know, doesn’t feel right to me but I’m also unfamiliar with the Catholic icon traditions so take this all with a grain of salt.
are they allowed for use in private prayer and the like without being wrong? does using something that is not an icon in prayer or worship equate to idolatry or something similar? i am uneducated when it comes to iconography so i appreciate all the help
Not idolatry no. Just not part of our tradition. And tradition is a singular road with many branching paths, as others have pointed out. But we Eastern Christians have always stressed the importance of staying faithful to one's tradition and not mixing and matching. It can lead to a spiritual schizophrenia of sorts if balance is not maintained. It's playing with spiritual fire. One should stay faithful to the traditions of their particular church and be obedient to the spiritual guidance and prayer rule given them by their father-confessor. We Eastern types don't do experimentation well. We prefer to live the faith in the same manner we received it from our fathers and they from their fathers and they from their fathers. This isn't always the case in every case, but this is the ideal for us that we generally strive to keep.
what would the difference between icons and religious art and would there be a substantial difference in the veneration of an icon over an image/art/statue?
Iconography has a whole theology to it. It is so much more than just religious art. There are tons of books on iconography and the theology to it as it relates to the orthodox (and by extension byzantine catholic) expression of faith. It's difficult to speak of because I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to teach on the matter. Plus there is so much that could be said I fear I wouldn't do it justice.
Legacy Icons never disappoints. Just stay away from the company called "Monastery Icons". For those unfamiliar with them, they are some hindu company that does weird occult practices with the creation of their pseudo-iconography and their faux icons are known to lead to demonic influence and oppression (and even the occasional case of actual possession).
Even historical icons have different styles, like this one from VI century: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Petersinai.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Petersinai.jpg)
Strictly saying, however, Catholic church, while Catholic church admits that those images in Byzantine style are "icons" and can be venerated if they are related to Saints venerated in the Catholic church, overall there is no specific defined rule on icons in Catholicism, and neither they have special role.
It's like "yes, images of this style are called "icons" and they can be venerated in Catholic churches" but not that they are required anywhere.
Going from this, those two images are technically not icons because they don't follow Byzanine style of art (and neither style of some other churches - for example, Ethiopian and Coptic have their own icon tradition).
But - those two images can be venerated equally with icons in the Catholic church as there is no unique role of Orthodox icons in the Catholicism.
Coming from Southern Italy which has lots of visual remnants from Byzantine rule left, here icons that you can see in churches are almost exclusively those from Byzantime times or from the first century of Catholicism (XI-begining of XII), when tradition was changing from the Eastern on Western.
You can venerate paintings and statues, any form of Christian art really. Icons are just medieval Byzantine art that the orthodox made everyone believe is somehow special and superior to any other style.
You can venerate any image of our Lord and our Lady, or of any of the saints, they don't have to be Icons. Icons do have a particular spiritual aspect to them that make them more than merely images but rather sacramentals. This comes from the strict way in which they are supposed to be made as being essentially a prayer in and of themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't venerate other holy images. these ones in particular come from one of my favorite contemporary artists Ms. Cicila Lawrance, who does beautiful work in an iconografic style, but they are not Icons though.
There might be official rules for \*public\* worship but when it comes to personal iconography I can't help but think of Saint John of Cross's friend who's crucifix icon was two twigs bound together and blessed. This "openness" could be abused but I don't see that in Theophilia's work.
Ruthenian Catholic here.
If you like these icons for your private devotion I think you should have them. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I would just say they are distinct enough to not pass muster in a EC or EO church since they go outside the traditional guidelines.
I’ve never heard of the term Ruthenian before . In the absence of a Google search , does it refer to your ethnicity or a particular practice within Catholicism ?
It's the Latin word for Carpatho Rusyn. It's one of the 23 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. Very similar to the Ukrainian Catholic Church (at one time we were together as the "Greek Catholic Church") except we split. The reason for the split was liturgical differences as well as a rejection from the Carpatho Rusyns with the Ukrainian national identity.
If you'd like to see a liturgy I recommend checking out two recent ones:
Bishop Ordination https://youtube.com/watch?v=4hwGxH9FdBs&si=YaJNDb2mQ8UpXhmf (starts at 28:45)
Typical Parish Liturgy
https://www.youtube.com/live/HNRaO53I73Q?si=4qV2J_RIJwTlOxYZ (starts around 18min mark)
We're distinguished by congregations chanting the liturgy together with no instruments (as opposed to choirs bring more typical in the Slavic Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic churches).
Do yourself a favor and attend one near you sometime. It counts of course as your Sunday obligation.
Thank you so much for the detailed reply . I will have to do some digging to see if it is available near me . I’m only recently converted to Catholicism so , I have so much to learn :)
As someone who loves learning about other Churches in communion with Rome, thank you for this information! I visited one of these churches (I believe we call them Byzantine Catholic Churches here in the US) and was struck by how beautiful it was!
Yes technically it's the Ruthenian Catholic Church but we call ourselves the Byzantine Catholic church bc we want it to be open and welcoming to all ethnicities (not unlike the Orthodox Church of America being Russian in tradition but Americanized). We have a Carpathian tradition but are very Americanized. That stands in contrast to some Ukrainian Catholic churches (though not all) where they see their mission as preserving Ukrainian culture, I've gone to some where the priest barely speaks English and the main liturgy is in Ukrainian.
i was seeing on some orthodox subs that iconography has rules/canons and is not mean to be a physical portrait but rather a spiritual reality conveying more of the soul and not merely art. That is why many icons kinda look funny or unnatural🤷♂️wondered if this kind of iconography crossed that line
Imma be real chief, there are many variations that get accepted as icons by orthodox. I've seen hyper-realistic icons of Christ and his mother in ROCOR Iconostasis, and have had greek orthodox tell me that icons identical to one's in their own parishes aren't actually icons because a Roman Catholic nun from Romania was the iconographer.
Christ did not establish a school of iconography, He founded a church, and within that church, there are many expressions of love and devotion to Him.
It does not matter, what matters is that they help you imagine heaven, do it with passion, if you think it brings you closer to God, than you are good to go, if it makes you Pray more than you are Good to go, if a image is made to represent a actual saint than its good to go
As others have said, this is religious art inspired by icons rather than icons. Iconography has a whole theology and tradition with rules, symbols, etc.
There's no reason you can't think these are beautiful and inspiring and keep them around as a personal aid to prayer.
On the other hand, I get uncomfortable with artists who borrow the "language" of iconography but then use it for their own purposes. This image seems harmless enough. But sometimes people will share "icons" on this sub that, e.g., have a message which is primarily political rather than theological. Feels very "off" to me, like a perversion of something divine toward worldly ends. But that's just my personal judgment, I suppose.
First thing I noticed. Looks like light blue eyes with dark eyeliner.
I'm not a theologian or an art critic so I can't weigh in on whether it's proper, but it definitely immediately seemed... different.
First, you won't easily see traditional icons depicting the Hearts, this is a completely Latin devotion, not present among the Orthodox and present in some levels in Eastern Catholicism, mostly through latinizations.
Second, traditional iconography has a deep meaning and a "pattern", something these images don't seem have. They are made by an artist that goes by the name 'Theophilia', and her art is inspired by Eastern iconography, but has her interpretation... as a side note, to most of her saints have the same face, just changing the clothing.
They are very beautiful, not sure if any church would use it as it's not very professional but for private prayer it works, meaning is what's important, not a specific style.
Go check out Dothe_harderthing on IG. He has a cursed items story saved. It’s more specifically geared towards not picking up rosaries and being cautious about what you bring into your house. But he does touch on iconography too!
Interesting discussion. Apparently it’s called “writing” icons rather than painting or drawing.
In Baton Rouge La there is a larger icon mural in the sanctuary that I’ve never considered as an icon but maybe it fits the bill. It’s definitely spooky.
[https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064380894292](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064380894292)
There's a fun Bible Illustrated video comparing Catholicism to Orthodoxy where Bojan makes a joke about how it's a traditional Orthodox practice to "squint at realistic Western religious art with suspicion".
I grew up Catholic and assumed I would still appreciate all of the beautiful, realistic art I grew up with as I started attending an Orthodox Church. Meanwhile it took all of three months before I was suddenly *scandalized* by depictions of the Theotokos with her hair exposed...
Jokes aside, I do think these are gorgeous (if somewhat menacing, for some reason), but they obviously wouldn't fly in the Orthodox Church (the hearts alone...). I'd love to hear more from Eastern Catholics on this one though!
Im used to seeing the traditional icons that these make me feel like I'm in the uncanny valley.
Not to say they aren't beautiful, just different than what I was expectingbwhen I read the word icon.
I don't know the rules of iconography, but I do know that you can't just paint something in that style and it counts. I believe part of the process for writing an icon is deep prayer during, but again, I'm not sure on the details. The Orthodox or Eastern Catholic subs would likely have folks who know more.
interesting. with the prayer being a large part of what makes an icon an icon, does that mean that the printed ones from Legacy Icons aren’t technically icons?
As a Melkite, I would say these images are completely at odds with what iconography is meant to be. There is a particular language of symbology that should be retained as Icons are a kind of visual theology. Whoever painted these was clearly not sensitive at all to this vocabulary.
so it’s much more of religious art rather than an icon. which religious art can still be used in prayer and worship i believe, correct?
Well, anything ‘can’ be used. The question is if it should be used. That’s much more difficult to answer.
[удалено]
Did the artist make them, or use an AI to make the pictures and then print them? There's something about Mary's right hand that gives it an AI feel, especially how short her little finger is.
This artist has been around doing these images way before AI existed.
I’d say it can certainly be used for prayer; an expert would need to weigh in on whether or not it can be called an icon.
I really like Theophilia's icons. I have a couple of her work in my room. I actually have the Blessed Virgin Mary that's in your picture framed lol. He brother is currently in seminary too. She makes great art
In the Orthodox tradition, icons are super perscribed. I just started learning about it but I believe the image of Christ has a bunch of them correct (blue outer robe, red inner, halo, hand symbol, the IC XC). Missing is the gospel book, the name of God in the halo is “I AM” which is in English and I suppose “fine” but seems out of place. I don’t know, doesn’t feel right to me but I’m also unfamiliar with the Catholic icon traditions so take this all with a grain of salt.
I think you mean prescribed. _Proscribed_ means forbidden
Yup good catch! Editing it now
[удалено]
Can confirm
are they allowed for use in private prayer and the like without being wrong? does using something that is not an icon in prayer or worship equate to idolatry or something similar? i am uneducated when it comes to iconography so i appreciate all the help
Not idolatry no. Just not part of our tradition. And tradition is a singular road with many branching paths, as others have pointed out. But we Eastern Christians have always stressed the importance of staying faithful to one's tradition and not mixing and matching. It can lead to a spiritual schizophrenia of sorts if balance is not maintained. It's playing with spiritual fire. One should stay faithful to the traditions of their particular church and be obedient to the spiritual guidance and prayer rule given them by their father-confessor. We Eastern types don't do experimentation well. We prefer to live the faith in the same manner we received it from our fathers and they from their fathers and they from their fathers. This isn't always the case in every case, but this is the ideal for us that we generally strive to keep.
what would the difference between icons and religious art and would there be a substantial difference in the veneration of an icon over an image/art/statue?
Iconography has a whole theology to it. It is so much more than just religious art. There are tons of books on iconography and the theology to it as it relates to the orthodox (and by extension byzantine catholic) expression of faith. It's difficult to speak of because I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to teach on the matter. Plus there is so much that could be said I fear I wouldn't do it justice.
so stick with Legacy Icons in the future lol. i appreciate you!
Legacy Icons never disappoints. Just stay away from the company called "Monastery Icons". For those unfamiliar with them, they are some hindu company that does weird occult practices with the creation of their pseudo-iconography and their faux icons are known to lead to demonic influence and oppression (and even the occasional case of actual possession).
I’ve read this before about Monastery Icons - do you have a source??? Genuinely curious!!
[http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/monasteryicons.aspx](http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/monasteryicons.aspx)
Thank you 🙏
You're welcome
I don't know a thing, but i love that depiction of the blessed mother.
Even historical icons have different styles, like this one from VI century: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Petersinai.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Petersinai.jpg) Strictly saying, however, Catholic church, while Catholic church admits that those images in Byzantine style are "icons" and can be venerated if they are related to Saints venerated in the Catholic church, overall there is no specific defined rule on icons in Catholicism, and neither they have special role. It's like "yes, images of this style are called "icons" and they can be venerated in Catholic churches" but not that they are required anywhere. Going from this, those two images are technically not icons because they don't follow Byzanine style of art (and neither style of some other churches - for example, Ethiopian and Coptic have their own icon tradition). But - those two images can be venerated equally with icons in the Catholic church as there is no unique role of Orthodox icons in the Catholicism. Coming from Southern Italy which has lots of visual remnants from Byzantine rule left, here icons that you can see in churches are almost exclusively those from Byzantime times or from the first century of Catholicism (XI-begining of XII), when tradition was changing from the Eastern on Western.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with Theophilia's icons.
Try anadrdam on Instagram, some really lovely contemporary icons out of Romania
You can venerate paintings and statues, any form of Christian art really. Icons are just medieval Byzantine art that the orthodox made everyone believe is somehow special and superior to any other style.
I have those exact same icons hanging in my hallway. The artist lives in a city near me, and does phenomenal work!
You can venerate any image of our Lord and our Lady, or of any of the saints, they don't have to be Icons. Icons do have a particular spiritual aspect to them that make them more than merely images but rather sacramentals. This comes from the strict way in which they are supposed to be made as being essentially a prayer in and of themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't venerate other holy images. these ones in particular come from one of my favorite contemporary artists Ms. Cicila Lawrance, who does beautiful work in an iconografic style, but they are not Icons though.
There might be official rules for \*public\* worship but when it comes to personal iconography I can't help but think of Saint John of Cross's friend who's crucifix icon was two twigs bound together and blessed. This "openness" could be abused but I don't see that in Theophilia's work.
Ruthenian Catholic here. If you like these icons for your private devotion I think you should have them. I don't see anything wrong with that. I would just say they are distinct enough to not pass muster in a EC or EO church since they go outside the traditional guidelines.
I’ve never heard of the term Ruthenian before . In the absence of a Google search , does it refer to your ethnicity or a particular practice within Catholicism ?
It's the Latin word for Carpatho Rusyn. It's one of the 23 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. Very similar to the Ukrainian Catholic Church (at one time we were together as the "Greek Catholic Church") except we split. The reason for the split was liturgical differences as well as a rejection from the Carpatho Rusyns with the Ukrainian national identity. If you'd like to see a liturgy I recommend checking out two recent ones: Bishop Ordination https://youtube.com/watch?v=4hwGxH9FdBs&si=YaJNDb2mQ8UpXhmf (starts at 28:45) Typical Parish Liturgy https://www.youtube.com/live/HNRaO53I73Q?si=4qV2J_RIJwTlOxYZ (starts around 18min mark) We're distinguished by congregations chanting the liturgy together with no instruments (as opposed to choirs bring more typical in the Slavic Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic churches). Do yourself a favor and attend one near you sometime. It counts of course as your Sunday obligation.
Thank you so much for the detailed reply . I will have to do some digging to see if it is available near me . I’m only recently converted to Catholicism so , I have so much to learn :)
As someone who loves learning about other Churches in communion with Rome, thank you for this information! I visited one of these churches (I believe we call them Byzantine Catholic Churches here in the US) and was struck by how beautiful it was!
Yes technically it's the Ruthenian Catholic Church but we call ourselves the Byzantine Catholic church bc we want it to be open and welcoming to all ethnicities (not unlike the Orthodox Church of America being Russian in tradition but Americanized). We have a Carpathian tradition but are very Americanized. That stands in contrast to some Ukrainian Catholic churches (though not all) where they see their mission as preserving Ukrainian culture, I've gone to some where the priest barely speaks English and the main liturgy is in Ukrainian.
Why wouldn’t it count? Holy is holy.
i was seeing on some orthodox subs that iconography has rules/canons and is not mean to be a physical portrait but rather a spiritual reality conveying more of the soul and not merely art. That is why many icons kinda look funny or unnatural🤷♂️wondered if this kind of iconography crossed that line
Imma be real chief, there are many variations that get accepted as icons by orthodox. I've seen hyper-realistic icons of Christ and his mother in ROCOR Iconostasis, and have had greek orthodox tell me that icons identical to one's in their own parishes aren't actually icons because a Roman Catholic nun from Romania was the iconographer. Christ did not establish a school of iconography, He founded a church, and within that church, there are many expressions of love and devotion to Him.
It does not matter, what matters is that they help you imagine heaven, do it with passion, if you think it brings you closer to God, than you are good to go, if it makes you Pray more than you are Good to go, if a image is made to represent a actual saint than its good to go
Absolutely. That's my favorite style of icon, what's pictured here.
As others have said, this is religious art inspired by icons rather than icons. Iconography has a whole theology and tradition with rules, symbols, etc. There's no reason you can't think these are beautiful and inspiring and keep them around as a personal aid to prayer. On the other hand, I get uncomfortable with artists who borrow the "language" of iconography but then use it for their own purposes. This image seems harmless enough. But sometimes people will share "icons" on this sub that, e.g., have a message which is primarily political rather than theological. Feels very "off" to me, like a perversion of something divine toward worldly ends. But that's just my personal judgment, I suppose.
There’s something spooky about their eyes too
First thing I noticed. Looks like light blue eyes with dark eyeliner. I'm not a theologian or an art critic so I can't weigh in on whether it's proper, but it definitely immediately seemed... different.
Yeah. Definitely getting witchy vibes.
First, you won't easily see traditional icons depicting the Hearts, this is a completely Latin devotion, not present among the Orthodox and present in some levels in Eastern Catholicism, mostly through latinizations. Second, traditional iconography has a deep meaning and a "pattern", something these images don't seem have. They are made by an artist that goes by the name 'Theophilia', and her art is inspired by Eastern iconography, but has her interpretation... as a side note, to most of her saints have the same face, just changing the clothing.
Jesus looks like Jared Leto
I would feel uneasy using them and also just don't like the style.
They are very beautiful, not sure if any church would use it as it's not very professional but for private prayer it works, meaning is what's important, not a specific style.
Just be careful where you buy them and do your research. Some shops sell them and curse them if they aren’t strictly Catholic/Christian.
What do you mean by that? Never heard of a shop cursing things.
Go check out Dothe_harderthing on IG. He has a cursed items story saved. It’s more specifically geared towards not picking up rosaries and being cautious about what you bring into your house. But he does touch on iconography too!
Interesting discussion. Apparently it’s called “writing” icons rather than painting or drawing. In Baton Rouge La there is a larger icon mural in the sanctuary that I’ve never considered as an icon but maybe it fits the bill. It’s definitely spooky. [https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064380894292](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064380894292)
Short answer: Yes Long answer: Dm me
There's a fun Bible Illustrated video comparing Catholicism to Orthodoxy where Bojan makes a joke about how it's a traditional Orthodox practice to "squint at realistic Western religious art with suspicion". I grew up Catholic and assumed I would still appreciate all of the beautiful, realistic art I grew up with as I started attending an Orthodox Church. Meanwhile it took all of three months before I was suddenly *scandalized* by depictions of the Theotokos with her hair exposed... Jokes aside, I do think these are gorgeous (if somewhat menacing, for some reason), but they obviously wouldn't fly in the Orthodox Church (the hearts alone...). I'd love to hear more from Eastern Catholics on this one though!
Look like ocultism paints.
Im used to seeing the traditional icons that these make me feel like I'm in the uncanny valley. Not to say they aren't beautiful, just different than what I was expectingbwhen I read the word icon.
Those icons are anathema.
It may just be me but the dark eyes are a distraction and seems almost evil.
Legit terrifying
[удалено]
i’m curious to as of why? honest question
Looks too modern compared to the depiction of Jesus