Novakovic2009.11.26 [14:43]
Расправа која делује озбиљнo али сигурно више приличи форуму. Речено је паметних и аргументованих ставова, но више само ставова ЗА и ПРОТИВ. Овај, gabriel77 каже за себе да неће више давати оцене јер га не разумемо, а боље би било да не даје овакве, на изглед квалификоване коментаре, јер он не разуме оно о чему прича. Позива се на Оптинске Свете Старце и Пајсија Величковског, не образлажући. Уз сва огромна уважавања према Светом Пајсију, догматика и канон не почињу од њега, мада и даље не знамо где то Свети Старац подржава његове коментаре. Није сврсисходно само нешто прочитати и извадити из контекста да би се неки став подржао, већ треба разумети оно о чему се прича и созерцати то о чему се прича, наравно !
Историјски развој олтарске преграде је необично буран и скоро редовно је предмет веома озбиљних естетских и теилошких расправа, на високом нивоу. Један од најзначајнијих симпозија на ову тему, са предзнаком међународни, одиграо се у Крагујевцу, пре две године, где је било веома полемично. Иначе, у Србији се последњих двадесетак година покушава урадити ревизија естетике предходних векова и то довести у саглашће са нашим временом, које по њима је богомдано за обрачун са свим утицајима. Којим утицајима и на шта !!!??? Неке владике по Србији већ предузимају активности за уклањање иконостаса од пре 150-250 година, где они / владике / виде одређени, мањи или већи утицај барока, рокаја, класицизма, реализма итд. све оно што није византија, коју они тумаче на себи својстве начин.
Код ове фотографије имамо гледање из три угла, догматског, естетичког и фотографског.
Фотограф је ову ситуацију затекао и у Православној цркви фотографисао олтарску преграду.....и то је сав његов грех / бар мисли gabriel77 /, не улазећи у естетику и догматику, за коју он не мора ни да зна.
Естетика нам говори о стиловима, којих је било пуно и којих ће бити и они / стилови / никад нису били озбиљна тема црквених власти и теолога......., наравно ако је догматика задовољена, осим када се желело полемисати и изражавати естетске ставове.
Догматика каже, а то је неко овде, у доле расправи назначио да олтарска преграда / читај иконостас / мора бити по предлошцима, како их је комисија прегледала и као и свака икона, постаје део литургичког чина тренутком када је освештана од надлежног или вишег архијереја, што је њена / иконина / основна сврха.
И ту је ствар запечаћена, једном за свагда. Нама је тешко да поверујемо да Митрополити Михајло или Петар Јовановић, половином XIX века, мање љубе Србију и Византију од браничевског епископа, у наша времена.
Наравно, наравно волели би смо да се изглед олтарских преграда врати у оно време, Византије и Светог Саве и то се полако догађа и нови српски иконостаси попримају такав изглед, и архитектоника и ликовно изражавање.
Али шта радити са оним што личи на омражени барок и што, по њиховом мишљењу, долази са запада / што уопште није тачно јер су Срби барок примили са истока, док Левантски барок долази из екс Византије, а таквих је иконостаса највише у Србији и на Светој Гори /!!!??? Такви иконостаси су освештани од валдика и одавно су у литургијском чину и примери су стилова који су валдали у та времена / махом је реч о највишим естетским и стилским дометима /. Њима није место у музејским збиркама или не дај Боже на сметлиштима, јер тада нису у литургичком чину и тада су музејски експонат, мртви су.
Чини ми се да је Антонио, који је започео распру, мислио на то да су различити аршини код прихватања и тумачења православности фотографије код оних аутора , који долазе са запада и истока. Ту се не може, драги Антонија ништа учинити и то је тако, ако је истина.
Све ово, горе речено односи се и на ову фотографију, иако може се неком чинити другачије. Сама фотографија је дост добра !
gabriel772009.11.26 [12:10]
smerenia nu înseamnă spălare pe creier, iar a avea discernământ duhovnicesc nu înseamnă ca judecam.
gabriel772009.11.26 [11:54]
Iata ce zicea un roman din secolul 19, cu mare admiratie fata de civilizatia Occidentului: Caţavencu: Ei bine! Ce zice soţietatea noastră? Ce zicem noi?... Iată ce zicem: această stare de lucruri este intolerabilă! (aprobări în grup. Cu tărie.) Până când să n-avem şi noi faliţii noştri?... Anglia-şi are faliţii săi, Franţa-şi are faliţii săi, până şi chiar Austria-şi are faliţii săi, în fine oricare naţiune, oricare popor, oricare ţară îşi are faliţii săi (îngraşă vorbele.)... Numai noi să n-avem faliţii noştri!... Cum zic: această stare de lucruri este intolerabilă, ea nu mai poate dura!...
gabriel772009.11.26 [11:28]
Only after the Saint Paisie Velicicovski and the Saint Nikodiom form the Holy Montain, orthodoxy returned to his normal life and identity. I recommend you to read much more from the life and activity of the Saint Paisie Velicicovski.
gabriel772009.11.26 [11:22]
In Romania and other orthodox countryies we have churches paintings in neo-renaissance style because orthodoxy was in "Babylonian captivity" in period of 14-18 centuries. Constantinopol and countries from Balkans have been under islamic occupation. In this heavy conditions, orthodox theology and art decay.
In Russia the autocrats tsars involved too much in the life of the Church and imposed the Western art in the Church.
Mitrut Popoiu2009.11.05 [09:50]
according to some people here, in that case we must take down the painting of about one half of the churches in bucharest (those made in the 19th- 20th century), as an example, the whole School of Grigorescu and Tattarascu, because "it expresses non-orthodox" feelings. Who are you, to know the orthodox or non-orthodox feelings? even more, of course, these chirches were consecrated by orthodox bishops. Have they also "non-orthodox feelings" if they approved this kind of art? I think they are still very orthodox. Instead of seeing the good part, it's easier to find all the time the "heresy", the "contradiction" On this site I barely see some photo positively commented so intensely as those "controversed". Anyway, a lot, maybe more than a half of the churches in Russia are painted in this neo-renaissance style. That make the Russian Church to be catholic? please !!!!
codre2009.10.07 [09:28]
neoclassic style, yes you are right, Medelen, but facade look inside the building, density iconostasis stucco and proportion of carved angels is Baroque stamp, actually this iconostasis is a blend, eclectic architecture.
Meldelen2009.10.06 [15:34]
I will not say, Codre, that this iconostasis has baroque-style. It seems neoclassic style far more than baroque: white and gold, and the classic architecture.
gabriel772009.10.06 [11:47]
Is sad that we have non-orthodox art in some orthodox churches, but that is the reallity, the art is sponsored by people that have money and political power not the plain people.
gabriel772009.10.06 [11:40]
Very good point Codre! :-) I agree with you, the art is the mirror of the soul.
codre2009.10.06 [11:32]
I will not talk about iconostasis paintings! I will talk about iconostasis architecture!
In terms of art history it is baroque iconostasis. Baroque was the style which it quickly joined the Catholic Church in counter-reformation time.
For a Orthodox Church this architecture does not make honor, so it is a model would not be promoted on THIS SITE (I mean the style of this interior ortodox church is not representative of the Orthodox Church in whole!)
.....whatever is represented in those iconostasis pictures (not orthodox style)!
Mitrut Popoiu said: ”I find no contradiction. I find valuable both arts. Not the icons are orthodox nor catholic, they are only byzantine-style, realist-style, renaissance and so on. We give different values to the things. Only people are orthodox, or catholic, not the things because they don't have reason. They are things not reasonable beings”
Not only people are orthodox, or catholic even people art that comes from people feelings. The art is not a series of styles (byzantine-style, realist-style, renaissance-style) that in the glacial encyclopedic dictionary, emerged from nothing, and disconnected from human feelings.
THE ART is the mirror of SOUL. These differences of styles appeared on the background of differences of experiences, especially in religious painting.
So the art can be orthodox, catholic, etc., because art is human feelings mirror (Orthodox feelings, Catholic feelings, etc.)
God help us!
Meldelen2009.10.06 [10:06]
Mihaela, Antonio is NOT promoting any heresy! He only noted, as me, that they were two copies of two Catholic paintings on this Orthodox church! Furthermore, if you study Murillo's art, you will notice that there's not very much pictoric difference between his Inmaculates and his Assumptions!
He is only giving his opinion! What's going on? To tell the opinion and to discuss about a Catholic dogma is to promote this Catholic dogma? Sorry, but NO!
mihaela2009.10.06 [06:05]
Antonio: if you know this difference, why are you promoting this HERESY here? It's NOT any painting of this HERESY here, why are you promoting it? Your attitude is against regulations of OrthPhoto.
Antonio B2009.10.06 [00:07]
Dear Cosmin,
If I confused anyone I apologize, but I know differentiate Immaculate Conception of the Assumption.
gabriel772009.10.05 [23:58]
AntonioB: I have just looked over wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception. They are different things. On the iconostasis is a painting about Assumption of Mother of God nothing against of Orthodox Church teaching as you said (immaculate conception). You should apologise to the people from this site due of the confusion you created.
Do you know what is the Immaculate Conception?
The Holy Mother of God, Mary, was physically begotten by Joaquin and Anna; but from this same time, God freed from the original sin (of Adan and Eva).God willed that Mary was always pure, but natural daughter of Joachim and Anna.
gabriel772009.10.05 [23:35]
@Antonio B: "Immaculate Conception" and "Assumption of Mary" are different doctrines. "Assumption of Mary" is a pious tradition tolerated by the Orthodox Church.
"Immaculate Conception" is a dogmatic error and is not accepted by the orthodox people.
Antonio B2009.10.05 [23:22]
Dear Alik, It is true, but by e-mails I have been charged of Catholic intruse in the Orthodox Church, to promoted the cult of the saints not recognized by the Orthodox Church, which apologize the barbarities of the Crusaders, etc.... Not fair.
mihaela2009.10.05 [23:21]
for Antonio: forgive me, but in this case (you have Phd about that) your problem is even more serious.
Meldelen2009.10.05 [23:17]
I just find curious to see copies of two works by Catholic painters on a the iconostasis of a Orthodox church. I do not want to discuss about dogmas. I will NOT discuss about dogmas, and was not my intention to make confusion to anybody.
Murillo and Rafael had been deeply copied in a lot of Catholic churches in America, but I not expected to find them copied in a Orthodox Russian church. As student of Art History, I found this fascinating. That's all.
Antonio B2009.10.05 [23:17]
Mihaela, I know this whole issue perfectly. Besides of geologist I am a theologian and doctor in the History of the Church.
alik2009.10.05 [23:16]
Antonio you were never asked to delete photos by editorial team. You have taken this decision becouse you didn't want to have discussions with some users.
If I remember well there were a lot of positive opinions about your photos.
mihaela2009.10.05 [23:13]
maybe for catholics, but Orthodox church had it from from 5-6th century, proclaimed by Byzantyne Emperor Mauricius. Please, get more informed before making such affirmations here, in public.
Antonio B2009.10.05 [23:09]
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus (1950) which proclaimed the Assumption of Mary as a dogma of faith.
mihaela2009.10.05 [23:03]
hey, this is too much: Assumption is NOT catholic dogma. It was established as a Christian feast before the schism.
Anyway: why do you make all this diversionism with Assumption and immaculata conceptia? I think you better recognize your mistake. Why are you doing this? Why do you confuse people with these?
Antonio B2009.10.05 [22:53]
The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are two Catholic dogmas (centuriwa XIX and XX).
This web is Orthodox and has its regulations which should be respected. But all members should respect the regulations in equality, all them with the same criteria. I have always respected the regulations and I have been forced to delete my photos because for all the atrocities that have been said to me. It is applied a different criteria for the Western European orthodox and the Eastern European orthodox?"
alik2009.10.05 [22:50]
Antonio we are open to hear different opinions and trying to allow for dificult conversations where people can express what they think
but we have never deleted photos which presenting life of the orthodox church.
Sometimes some users are to ofensive with their opinions but edtorial team has never deleted photos which has some link to orthodox church.
mihaela2009.10.05 [22:42]
Antonio, I think you have some problem with English language: "Assumption" means "Dormition". We celebrate it also on 15 August. Here is the orthodox icon with it:
mihaela2009.10.05 [22:31]
Hello! It is a problem here. Sure there are orthodox churches, like this one that from a reason or another have more or less catholic influence in the paintings. This one seems it has strong influence, and I think because it was not painted by orthodox people, but by western painters and made by western architects. Anyway, it is an orthodox altar and it is blessed by an orthodox bishop, and I am sure here is served only orthodox liturgy and is an orthodox church.
On the other hand: What is the link of "Assumption of Virgin Mary" with "immaculata conceptia"? Sorry, these are two different things. We have in Orthodoxy Assumption of Mother of God, but with other representation, sure. So, no reason to talk here about "immaculata conceptia"
kruvasya2009.10.05 [22:20]
(For gabriel77) "Immaculate Conception (with pictures B. Murillo, 1798, is a miniature of P. Drozhdin)
Meldelen2009.10.05 [22:16]
Dear people: Antonio is right about the nature of this pieces.
This is the "Assumption of the Virgin" as Bartolomé Esteban Murillo painted: http://www.mariologia.org/images/murillo09.jpg
It is a wonderful and artistic painting of the Panagia, but seen by Catholic eyes.
The other painting, Saint Michael, is a beautiful work by Raffaello Sanzio: http://www.multimedios.org/galerias/d/16247-2/sanmiguel05.jpg
I personally agree with Mitrut Popoiu, I will not condemn this photo, but I also think that Antonio is right. The regulations of the site should be equal for all users.
gabriel772009.10.05 [21:44]
Thank you Vladimir! Can you tell us if on the icon from the left is mentioned something like "Immaculate Conception" as Antonio said?
kruvasya2009.10.05 [20:52]
The photo shows the Orthodox Church of Sts. apostles. Peter and Paul. On Sunday they spend liturgy priests from the Church of St.. Equal to the Apostles. Mary Magdalene.
gabriel772009.10.05 [20:32]
..in the case Antonio has right about the painting from the left. Personally, I am not familiar with catholic pictures. Maybe someone from Russia would confirm his words about this painting.
gabriel772009.10.05 [20:28]
I think this picture breakes the first rule of the site.
Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox dogma.
If the Immaculate Conception is a schismatic dogma (Mihaela):
http://www.orthphoto.net/photo.php?id=45752&id_jezyk=1
Why is appear in the iconostasis?
If is a contradiction.
Mitrut Popoiu2009.10.05 [17:28]
I find no contradiction. I find valuable both arts. Not the icons are orthodox nor catholic, they are only byzantine-style, realist-style, renaissance and so on. We give different values to the things. Only people are orthodox, or catholic, not the things because they don't have reason. They are things not reasonable beings.
VladiN2009.10.05 [16:53]
Antonio is right. The Emperor of the Orthodox Russia Pavel I was the Grand Master of the Maltese Order i.e. catholic order. No wonder his family church was arranged in a catholic way.Maybe because of that he kept his throne only for 5 years. Sure this shot is concerned with Orthodoxy in no way (Антонио прав.Император православной России Павел I одновременно был Великим гроссмейстером мальтийского ордена,т.е. католического ордена. Неудивительно, что его домашняя церковь в его главной резиденции в Павловске была устроена в католическом духе. Без сомнения, к православию этот снимок не имеет никакого отношения.)
Antonio B2009.10.05 [12:24]
Dear friends,
This is really funny. Such a great contradiction! You're always condemning photos with Catholic and Ecumenism issues, and nobody is telling now nothing about this photo!
This iconostasis shows clearly on its left panel a copy of the Inmaculata Conception -a Catholic dogma- which is a copy of a painting by the Spanish Catholic painter Murillo! And, on the left panel, we can see a Saint Michael which is copy of a painting by the Italian Catholic painter Raffaello Sanzio!
Why this photo is allowed and not condemned, and others so? Maybe some users -Spanish? Polish?- are not allowed to relax about OrthPhoto regulations, and Russian users are allowed to upload the photos which are forbidden to others? I repeat: such a contradiction!
