How
bad is the spiritual decline in the West?
Judging by its popular Christmas music, it is nearing its collapse. Consider this version of ‘We Three Kings’ by
the ‘Christian rock’ band Tenth Avenue North:
Alternating
between low mumbling and wild wailing, it is fairly clear that the West is
sliding back into heathen conceptions of religious worship, which focuses on
feeding and inflaming the fallenness of the passions rather than healing them. These reflections on religious art in the
Orthodox Church and in the Schismatic West plainly show there is a difference
between the two approaches:
. . .
“Liturgical art, on the other hand, has a spiritual, symbolic and
supernatural character.”
“The ecclesiastical art of the Orthodox Church does not strive to
delight our senses, but rather to sanctify our senses by offering us the same
holy nourishment which we partake of during our holy services. This nourishment
comes to us through hymnology, iconography, architecture, and even through the
art of the sacred utensils, vestments and every other man-made object in the
temple. All these, with their reverent and elevating character work together
for the purpose of lifting the souls of the faithful to praise and
thanksgiving, but not in the aesthetic manner which the secular art serve. It
is, rather, accomplished in an entirely different manner, a manner which is
spiritual in itself.”
. . .
As secular induces
human emotion which is temporary and often misleading and misunderstood, the
art of the church brings contrition. Mr. Kontoglou gives us these simple
examples:
“I am emotionally moved in the theater; I am contrite in church.” The
confusion of these two feelings {that is, of the profane and the sacred, of the
worldly and the religious] is the cause of the confusion of the worldly and the
spectacle with the liturgical service, a confusion of reason of which there
have been introduced into many of the churches Western art which depicts the
saints as ordinary men, painted in a natural style and especially four part
music which is not only foreign to the character of [Greek] Orthodoxy, but is
in itself worldly, theatrical, sensual, romantic, having no place in he Church
especially the Orthodox Church where everything has liturgical character.”
Also from Photios
Kontoglou: “The works of Western
religious art are emotional and dramatic. The dramatic element is carnal, even
though it is thought to be spiritual. In the Orthodox icon there exists the
liturgical element. Wherever the liturgical element is present, there the
dramatic and emotional [or carnal] element is neutralized. In the works of
Western religious art there is no spiritual ascent. The saints, Christ, the
All-holy Mother of God are simply people painted from life, ordinary people who
portray Christ, the All-holy One, or the saints. With us the iconographer is
not an ordinary painter as in the West; he has a special service [liturgy] to
perform through this art, a spiritual service [liturgy] and for this reason his
is called “iconographer”.
. . .
The Western art of today
is a reflection of Western religion today. Today’s Western religion is a
reflection of their attitude about the importance of the world in religion
today. Thus, in the West, people departed from the original purpose of the
Christian faith; the inner freedom from the passions by battling their Devil,
to overcome sin, but in the place of welfare of the soul and acquiring the Holy
Spirit, striving to be accepted by the world, the prosperity and pleasure of
the body has taken precedent. Thus in the West, people hope to avoid the moral
guilt of sin, if not by good works, then by faith alone. So commonly, their
religious art shows the empirical man, having forgotten the piety once
delivered to the saints.
. . .
In the Orthodox icon of
the Crucifixion and His bringing down from the cross, all the figures, Christ
Himself, the Theotokos, and all those portrayed, show minimal expression. One of
the icon’s primary function is not to display the passions but dispassion. It
is not suppose to be theatrical and worldly, but humble and dignified.
Dispassion is the route to salvation.
. . .
Source: Paul Azkoul (thanks to C for the article), http://www.traditionalbyzantineiconography.com/2017/11/09/on-the-differences-of-western-religious-art-and-orthodox-iconography/,
opened 1 Jan. 2018
Rather
than bringing about any sort of dispassion and contrition, post-Schism Western
art does the opposite, bringing about a state of frenzy which is spiritually
dangerous, and can lead people into the nets of demonic delusion.
But
the more traditional-minded Anglicans and Roman Catholics may protest that
their arts are also quite different than the Evangelical type we have been
writing of. This is true to a degree: Some of it does create more of a feeling of calmness
and compunction (though some of it is also very sensual and agitating), but
this is borrowed (and diminishing) capital from their Orthodox past. However far they may walk back down their
particular branch to its starting point, it still remains separate from the
Tree of the Orthodox Church, broken off from the one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church, and thus dead already despite some external signs of life.
What
is true of writing icons is true in the making of all truly Christian art:
Only those who have
adapted “faith once delivered to the saints” [Jude 3], following an
uninterrupted tradition, of true doctrine, the same yesterday, today and
forever, can paint icons, because icons are not just inspirational, and
educational, but they are a representation of true doctrine, an expression of
one faith and one baptism. Faith means nothing if it is a false faith. If
iconography is Theology, or as Trubetskoi said, “Theology in Color”, then false
theology begets false iconography. The reverse also being true, and therefore
he or she who espouses false doctrine can not paint icons. They may attempt it,
but only a pseudo reproduction will have been their greatest achievement. They
may be technically accurate, and aesthetically beautiful, but it will not be
grace filled, and so, consequently, not an icon, but a religious painting.
Iconography must have two natures as did Christ, spiritual and physical. Those
with false doctrine have only the physical. The logic is supremely simple.
. . .
Iconography is not
“special” as if it is one among many other “special” talents. It is not a brick
in a wall of many other bricks which can not be singled out, being assimilated
into some obscurity. Talents such as, ordinary art, or the ability to compose
music, or poetry, beautiful as they may be, or even a genius for science come
from an inner natural aptitude, but iconography is a noetic gift, a calling, if
you will, from God to a select few of His people. One can not simply decide
that he or she “feels” moved emotionally, to paint icons, they can not just
choose it because they have artistic ability or aspirations to paint them, and
therefore, merely pick up a brush, practice for a few years and then call
themselves, iconographer. It is not an academic subject. The iconographer works
in direct contact with the Holy Spirit, the saints, and the angels. What an
awesome task, a fearful and humbling task! The unity between God and the
iconographer is rare, and extra-ordinary. The idea that one may open up a
“workshop” to show people how to paint icons for themselves is presumptuous.
Source: Ibid
Let
the West leave behind her corrupted doctrine and arts (some of her art can be
salvaged, though), and celebrate Christmas in the noetic way it was intended to
be - with stillness and watchfulness in the heart, rightly ordered passions,
joyful sorrow, repentance, humility, etc., which one will find in these
Orthodox Christmas hymns and the icons shown with them.
Troparion
for the Prefeast of the Nativity
Christmas
Kontakion
--
Holy
Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema
to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment