coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 02:06 AM

Hi from Sydney, Australia .. I've always been fascinated by the art of iconography and I'd like to give a small speech in our youth meeting group about how to verify a christian "picture" and whether it is acceptable as an icon in the Coptic church or not, HH Pope Shenouda touches on this topic in some of his sermons and I'd love to get more in-depth information, let me explain:

The most famous picture of Archangel Michael is actually wrong, as it shows his belly button, obviously since he had no mother so it is considered incorrect, same thing goes for most pictures of Adam and Eve

Also all the crucifiction pictures of Jesus Christ and the nails in his palms are wrong (the nails were actually driven where most Copts nowadays have small tatoo crosses, the flesh around the palm simply couldnt support a human body and would've torn under the weight

So can anybody point out any more of these? I'd just like to rise awarness in my church

Thanks in Advance !
Akchfmay
(Astatee3 Kol Shee2 Fi al Masee7 Alazy Yokaweeky)

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

mikhail90

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 03:45 AM

hey there
im from sydney too i go st. marks church..what church u from ??

back to the topic...
Anba Danial said that in St. Mary's Icon she cannot be wearing Green...(sometimes u do see that, esp. in Greek icons) because Green is the colour of the devil.. St. Mary should be wearing blue> the colour of Heaven. and i think Red is acceptable...
i cant really remember much
aniwaiz.

my 2 cents

God Bless

_________________
'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble'
- James 4:6

Joined: Jun 07, 2004 | Posts: 651
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 04:02 AM

Hey Mikhail,
St Anthony and St Paul - Guildford

Thanks about that, you're right all saints should not be wearing green (except if it is part of their military attire like Mar Mina) and thats the reason why the dragon under St George's horse is green too

Virgin Mary should be dressed in blue - symbolizing her status as the second heaven - and red symbolizing her "royalty" and the blood of Christ, 3 stars around her symbolizing her being virgin b4, during and after giving birth to Jesus and usually her halo is larger/brighter than most other saints ... but that's all I know about the subject myself ...

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

Ramez Mikhail

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 05:20 AM

Guys,

There is nothing universally and transcendingly evil about the color green. It happens to represent evil in our iconographic system, and thats that.

So there is nothing wrong if a Greek icon or any other form of religious art depicting saints or angels or even Jesus Christ Himself in green. It simply doesnt mean evil except in Coptic art.

Just becareful with what u label as wrong or a mistake.

Joined: Sep 15, 2002 | Posts: 1782

Misteka

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 07:56 AM

The color of royalty is purple, not red. Red is martyrdom or suffering.

Joined: Oct 05, 2005 | Posts: 194
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Meghalo05

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 09:34 AM

Also, Judas Iscariot should not be pictured in the Last Supper icon at all. I know some churches who have him standing in the corner of the icon facing opposite of the disciples and holding the treasury bag, and that His Holiness will not consecrate any icon that has Judas written in it. Also, Saint Peter's icon should be the first one placed to the right of the Last Supper Icon as he was chosen by the Holy Spirit and everything that is chosen by the Holy Spirit is on the right. Saint John's icon should be placed the first one on the left of the Last Supper icon as Saint John was the one who leaned on our Savior's breast.

Also, all icons which depict Saint Mary should have our Lord in the icon with her, because Saint Mary would have no exaltation, high honor, and greatness if it were not for Jesus Christ.

Also, the icon of the holy Epiphany should not have John the Baptist holding water in his hand and pouring it on Christ's head, because it is clearly stated in the Gospel of Saint Mark that our Lord rose up out of the water, and this clearly shows that he was baptised by immersion and not by pouring or sprinkling (I know for a fact some churches that have this icon.)

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, and pray for me always.

Abe

_________________
Abraham Ghattas

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

geomekhaiel

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 10:09 PM

Hi Abe,

I'm not sure about the one of St. Mary being by herself. I think that having her in an Icon by herself is just fine...

If your standards are true, being that she wouldn't be great without having had Christ (which I agree with you on), then in that case, none of the other Saints of our church should be depicted by themselves because none of them could have ever been great with out Christ in their lives....now that's just not true.

Does that make sense?

I have seen Icons that have only St. Mary in them (with out Christ in it) but I doubt that they icon would be considered wrong. We all acknowledge the fact that Christ was the reason that St. Mary is looked upon so highly in our church but even without His presence in the icon we can all still know that Christ was the reason for her greatness.

George Mekhaiel

Joined: Aug 05, 2003 | Posts: 1712
Location: Saint George COC

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 05, 2006 - 10:46 PM

Hi guys, thanks sooo much this is exactly the type of information I am looking for, to simplify it more: I want to know which Christian pictures HH Pope Shenouda does not bless or sign, Also thanks for those who corrected my faulted info, I'll take care when I discuss the subject further, please send more info if you can

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

meenas

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 11:59 AM

Peace

Hey Im also from Sydney, St. Abanoubs Blacktown. Nice to see some fellow Sydnites!

The icon of the Annunciation has the Virgin without our Lord in it. As a rule, they call every icon without her carrying our Lord, 'al-3adra al-hazeena' or 'the sorrowful Virgin', because they took from her her source of joy.

Also she should always be placed at the right hand of our Lord Christ, according to psalm 45 (i think), which proclaims that "at your right hand o King, stands the queen".

Also I remember when HH was consecrating our Church, he refused to consecrate the baptism icon, because it only had St. John the Forerunner in it without our Lord. And in this other church, they had a statue of St. Mary inside the Church, and when HH saw it, he basically froze and said he's not taking another step inside the church till its removed.

Joined: Jul 24, 2003 | Posts: 132
Location: Sydney, Australia

minasoliman

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 03:23 PM

Dear Meghalo,

I was wondering. If HH would not consecrate any picture with Judas in it, does that go for any saint that have some sort of an "enemy" of God as well, say for example the Abu Seifin icon that portrays St. Mercurious as killing someone under him?

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

Mina Aziz

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 04:18 PM

Hello,

I just wanted to clarify something. In coptic iconography, it is NOT wrong to put the nailsmarkings in the palms of Our Lord's hands. As you know, coptic iconography is not meant to be literal, and when Dr. Isaac Fanous puts the nails in the palms, it is because of the verse, "I have engraved you name in the palm of My hands."

Also, if you'll notice that in Coptic icons of the crucifixion, both feet are represented with the piercing of the nails, but we all know that there was only one nail...the idea is to show all the suffering of Christ, that He suffered in both feet....

God bless your topic, it's a wonderful one....

speaking of icons...hehe...my store will open very soon, i was just delayed with some matters, but hopefully, by the end of next week, you'll all be able to access the store. (CopticIconStore.com)

God Bless,

Mina

Joined: Feb 05, 2003 | Posts: 83
Location: MTL-Canada

tonyhabibi

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 05:38 PM

Whatever mina aziz is selling im buying .

by the way , i think the nail did go in the palm and not in the wrist section , and i dont understand the " weight " conflict that defeats this concept .. becuase jesus had his feet nailed and bended on a wooden block in addition to the cross . and that was supporting his body somewhat . hmmm , i think the nail in the wrist is just so barbaric in pain that i think the average person would just simply die from the pain of the nail in the wrist... its just so painful ... i had a 3 cm needle peirce slightly into my palm .... and it hurt like crazy last year ..... imagine in the wrist with a 9 inch nail ? ... wow ... only god can handle that much pain ...

Joined: Apr 09, 2004 | Posts: 1220
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 11:08 PM

Woo hoo I'm glad several ppl are contributing to this post
Meenas nice meeting you, could you elaborate more on the statue thing? Coptic churchs shouldn't in general have statues or there was something wrong with this one in particular? I'm extremely interested in gathering information of incidents like the one Meenas just mentioned of HH Pope Shenouda

As for the nails in the palm or wrist, the area between the centre of your palm to between your fingers is flesh and muscle, it cannot hold the weight of a grown up man, while your wrist is practically between 2 bones which gives it better support (this was proved by the shroud of Turin, but whether you believe or doubt it thats an entirely different topic)

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

Meghalo05

posted on Jul 06, 2006 - 11:44 PM

Aghape,

I personally think that is not a big issue where the nails went, whether it was through the wrist in between the bones, or in the palm. But I think that the nails through the palms is quite possible and can hold him up because they probably tied his forearms strongly to the cross. So even if it went through the fleshy muscle area of the palm, our Lord would still be kept up and it can hold him up because his forearms or arms were probably tied with rope strongly to the cross. I think in Passion of Christ it is as depicted as such. I also think that it is more likely to break or fracture bones if it went through the wrist rather than the fleshy muscle area of the palms, and of course our Lord fulfilled the prophecy that "Not one of his bones were broken" as he was the True Passover Lamb, so thus the palm area would make more sense of the location of the nails. Thats just my opinion...

Abe

_________________
Abraham Ghattas

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 07, 2006 - 12:22 AM

Lol okay okay like I said folks that's another debate for another day but lets get back to the main question pleaseeee we're doing gr88888, the original Q was: Which Christian pictures around us have mistakes that do not allow them to be icons (from the Coptic churchs point of view)

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

Ramez Mikhail

posted on Jul 07, 2006 - 01:42 AM

Meghalo, its funny how used a reasonable reference to a known prophecy in completely the opposite way. Do u really think the palm of ur hand has no bones?

The prophecy u mentioned is exactly why it makes more sense for the nails to be thru the wrist. If positioned right, the nail could go in the space between the ulna and the radius bones and not break a single bone. If positioned in the palm however, it is sure to break the metacarpals. How do u figure that ur palm has no bones...?!!

Joined: Sep 15, 2002 | Posts: 1782

Bigd

posted on Jul 07, 2006 - 02:01 AM

Icons were christ is holding up two fingers are false icons in the coptic church because the two fingers symobolize the two seperate divinity's instead of our belief that the two were one. I have seen many icons of christ like this in many coptic churches.

Joined: Jan 26, 2005 | Posts: 13
Location: ST.MARY'S SEATTLE, WA

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 07, 2006 - 02:17 AM

Bigd, THANK YOU !!! YESSSS that's a very interesting piece of info, I never noticed it

Thanks again

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

nadernyc

posted on Jul 09, 2006 - 11:57 PM

In the late 80's, His Holiness visited our Coptic Church in Queens (St Mary and St Anthony) and he requested that we change the icon of the Epiphany (The baptism of Our Lord) His reason was:

The original Icon had a a full Figured St John the Baptist holding a tray with his head (b/c he got beheaded), and the lower right hand corner a scene of the epiphany 10 times smaller.

HH said Our Lord should never be depicted as a small figure in comparison to someone else in the icon.

Also, I am not sure if you are looking for points on Iconography or mistakes pointed out by HH alone.

May I ask what the motivation is?

_________________
World Population Estimate:
6061585597
And every one of them needs Jesus!!!

Joined: Jan 26, 2004 | Posts: 133
Location: Queens, New York

CopticChris434

posted on Jul 10, 2006 - 02:56 AM

From Bigd:Icons were christ is holding up two fingers are false icons in the coptic church because the two fingers symobolize the two seperate divinity's instead of our belief that the two were one.
i was told by a serbian orthodox monk if you look closely his hand is in a shape and this shape is his name as i will show in the picture here but his hand is in the shape of the letters of his name IC
XC in greek

aghape,
chris
p.s. i dont know how to upload a picture

_________________
 Agapy
CopticJrictoferoc

Abba pishoi pi Jrictoferoc

Joined: Dec 18, 2004 | Posts: 61

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 10, 2006 - 04:15 AM

Fascinating ! and yes of course it makes sense that Christ should never be depicted a minor character in an icon, good good keep them coming please !!

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13

Ramez Mikhail

posted on Jul 10, 2006 - 04:42 AM

The comment about any icon of st.mary without Christ in it being called "the sad virgin" makes no sense. If it were true, then even the annunciation icon would be called "the sad virgin", which would be very strange.

My knowledge is that the icon of the sad virgin refers to a specific picture of st.mary where her face is shown in close-up and she is apparently weeping.

Joined: Sep 15, 2002 | Posts: 1782

Rob

posted on Jul 11, 2006 - 06:57 AM

Peace and grace,

If I may add something about the hand of Christ in Icons, I will try to keep this short. There have been many speculations about the hand of Christ our Lord. I have heard before the one finger vs. the two finger argument about one representing the one nature of Christ our Lord and the other the 2 natures, but I believe that to be incorrect. I have heard a better explanation and I believe it to be a more spiritual one which I will share with you. If you look at your finger you will see that you have three knuckles on each finger and you have to on your thumb. If you assign each knuckle a letter in the Greek alphabet starting at the first knuckle and working down and then starting at the top knuckle of the index finger and working down and so forth (and this works for the coptic alphabet as well because we don't get into the demotic letters)by the time you get to Iota you sould be at the second knuckle down of your ring finger. Iota of course is the letter that the name of our Lord starts with and I believe that is the reason we have Iota crosses (I think). Anyhow, if a priest is asked to bless something and does not have a cross in his hand, he was to put his thumb to that second phalanx or knuckle and bless in the sign of the cross, but he would also be blessing in the name of the Lord since that second knuckle symbolizes the letter Iota and hence the name of our Lord. The reason I don't believe the 1 nature 2 nature theory is because if you go to the church of the four incorporeal creatures in the Monastery of St. Anthony, the Icon of Christ the Pantocrator depicts clearly that Christ has his thumb to his 2nd knuckle. If I remember correctly the icons were written in the 6th century sometime because it was the deeper layre and not the more superficial one which was written in the 12th century??? Anyhow, if it is written in the 6th century then certainly the 1 nature, 2 nature ordeal (452 AD) would have been VERY fresh in the minds of the monks and they certainly would have avoided such a huge misrepresentation of our faith. I have a picture of the icon if anyone is interested in seeing it. Now in regards to the fingers looking like the greek letters XC, that might be applicable nowadays because they purposely position their fingers like that, but sometimes I believe people apply contemplations to things that exist within the church when that's not really what was meant to be represented originally (I know that sentence didn't make much sense, I'm sorry, but it's late). I have a picture of the Icon if anyone is interested in seeing it, it's a little blury, but I made sure to examine it carefully when I was there.

Rob

Sorry for the lengthy response

Joined: Mar 06, 2004 | Posts: 8

mikokiko

posted on Jul 11, 2006 - 10:43 AM

Another interpretation i heard of the Icon in which the Lord Jesus as the Pantocrator on the Royal throne with his index finger extended and the book in His left hand is that the book in His left hand symbolizes that you can only experience and be fed by God's word only after you have experienced His love, which is what His extended right arm symbolizes.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Akchfmay

posted on Jul 12, 2006 - 10:49 PM

Guys I found a few more (some are obvious):
+ If St. Mary is on Jesus' left
+ Any saints without a halo
+ The apostles together but only Peter holding a chain of keys
+ An old St. Mark writing the Bible (he was in his 40's when that happened)
+ A young Joseph the carpenter

Joined: Jul 05, 2006 | Posts: 13