The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1

APOLOGIA & CANON
Part 1 – Aims, History, Critical Review

 Diptych, revealed, ecumenical icon of the Divine Heart of
God the Father Encompassing All Hearts – Infinite Love;
◦ Actual icon written by Fr. Richard G. Cannuli, O.S.A.

 Left-hand icon of diptych shows the Divine Heart of God
the Father, right-hand icon shows the Consecration (Seal)
Prayer to the Father.

 Icon design and prayer revealed through corporeal
theophanies and inner locutions to two Roman Catholics, in
2010-2011;
◦ Main person under spiritual direction.

Copyright 2012, M. Bartolo-Abela. 2

The Divine Heart of The Consecration (Seal)
God the Father Prayer to the Father


 (1) That God the Father be paid the
homage, veneration, and worship due to Him, as the
Almighty;

 (2) Concrete symbol of His infinite love for humanity;
◦ Reminder that the Father exists, especially in this day of generalized
fatherlessness;

 (3) Reciting consecration prayer while venerating His Divine
Heart, results in His Fatherly Seal (Rv 3:10-12, 14:1-5);
◦ The Seal of the Father annuls the name, number, mark of the beast
(Rv 13:11-18, 14:1-5);
◦ Special graces are given by the Father, to withstand attacks from evil
during the Great Chastisement;

 (4) Weekly cenacles of worship, resulting in all graces needed to
habitually live in the Father’s Divine Will;

 (5) Facilitates joint worship of God the Father by the Roman
Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, emphasizes urgent need
for re-unification;

 (6) Tangible means of veneration, for reparation and consolation
to the Father, for blasphemies against His Divine Heart;

 (7) More veneration of God the Father increases His Mercy and
decreases His Wrath, minimizing the pain, suffering, and
duration of the Great Chastisement;
◦ Facilitates humankind’s entry into the New Israel.


 Dn 7:25, 8:3-14, 8:24-25, 9:25-27, 12:6-11;
 Is 24:16-25, 25:6-12;
 Jl 1:2-20, 2:1-27, 3:1-5, 4:1-21;
 2 P 3:7;
 Rv 2:10-11, 3:10, 6:5-17, 7:1-17, 8:1-5, 9:1-21, 11:7-
10, 12:7-17, 13:1-18, 14:6-20, 16:17-21, 18:9-23, 20:1-
6;
 Zech 14:1-21;
 Zeph 1:2-18, 2:1-15, 3:1-20.


 Pre-iconoclasm, icons of God the Father were based on
theophanies/manifestations to
Daniel, Elijah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Moses;
◦ The Father was depicted in terms of His energeia, not ousia;
◦ Most icons were destroyed during iconoclasm - Argument was
made that venerating icons was idolatry;

 After iconoclasm, 7th Ecumenical Council of the
undivided Church (Nicaea II) addressed veneration of
holy icons;
◦ Quinisext Council (Council in Trullo) had only addressed the
issue of depicting Christ as a Lamb.


 Nicaea II decreed that iconoclasm was heresy and that
venerating holy icons was to be encouraged;

 Adoration and absolute worship of latreia is reserved for God
alone, while veneration and relative worship of proskynesis can
be paid to any sign representing its prototype;
◦ “Agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the
Church” (Gibbon, 1890, Introduction of images into the Church);

 Icons are “not like the original with respect to essence, but with
respect to hypostasis” (Nicaea II);

 Those refuting the biblical theophanies were condemned and
the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established.


 After the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)
held the Ecumenical Council of Trent, while the Orthodox
Church (OC) held the Three Councils of Moscow – the
Stoglav Council, Council of Moscow, and the Great Council
of Moscow.

 The issue of venerating holy icons was addressed at all
these councils.

 The Council of Trent (RCC) confirmed all decrees of Nicaea
II on sacred icons. No prohibitions regarding icons of God
the Father were made.


 The Stoglav Council (1st Council; OC) decreed that icons
must retain fidelity to established models when
depicting God;
◦ St Andrei Rublev’s Trinity icon was considered to exemplify
such a model;

 Sole authority was given to the hierarchy, to determine
how representations of God and Jesus Christ could be
made;
◦ Based on the reported words of St John of Damascus as, “Do
not represent the divinity . . . because the Godhead is simple
and indivisible, inaccessible to the eye.”


 The Council of Moscow (2nd Council; OC) approved
icons of God the Father, depicted either independently
or as part of the Trinity;
◦ Such icons were considered according to Tradition, especially
Athonite tradition;

 Persons considering icons of the Father as ‘Latin
heretical concepts’ were condemned;
◦ St Makarii said that regarding icons of God the Father as
heretical was analogous to ascribing to the heresy of the
Galatians (Bodianskii, 1858, Chteniia Imperat, Bk II).


 The Great Council of Moscow (3rd Council; OC) forbade
depicting God the Father on holy icons, independently or
as part of the Trinity, as the Father was not incarnate;
◦ Based on (1) Mt 11:27 – “No one knows the Father except the Son;”
◦ (2) Is 40:18 – “What likeness will you find for God or what form to
resemble his?,”
◦ (3) Acts 17:29 – “We ought not to believe that the Godhead is the
same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought;”
◦ (4) St John of Damascus – “Who can make an imitation of God the
invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To
make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety;”

 But the council decreed that the Father could be painted
with white hair, from St John’s visions in the Apocalypse.


 Depicting God the Father on holy icons was legitimate
in the early Church;
◦ Accepted use by laypersons, iconographers, and ecclesiastical
hierarchy;

 Differences about icons of the Father arose after
iconoclasm and persist to this day;

 Neither the Quinisext Council nor Nicaea II forbade
depicting the Father on icons, based on His energeia;


 Decrees of Nicaea II remain binding on both RCC and OC;
◦ Last ecumenical council of the undivided Church;

 Subsequent council decrees contradicting those of Nicaea II
are invalid, due to (1) Nicaea II having been accepted by
both RCC and OC; (2) hermeneutic of continuity;

 Full subsistence of the universality of the Church, as
understood in the early undivided Church, persists in the
RCC due to its unbroken Petrine succession (Paul
VI, 1964, Lumen Gentium).


 No impediments exist to depicting God the Father on
holy icons in the RCC;

 Precedent for such icons within the RCC was set in
2004, with enshrinement of the first, revealed icon of
the Father at the ‘Jubilee’ Pro-Cathedral of God the
Merciful Father in Zaporozhye (Ukraine);
◦ With the specific blessing of John Paul II.

 No true impediments exist, either, in the OC, to
depicting the Father on sacred icons.


 Council of Trent (RCC)
◦ “Due honor and veneration are to be given them, not that any
divinity or virtue is believed to be in them . . . but because the
honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes;”
◦
 Nicaea II
◦ “Holy images . . . be set forth in all the holy Churches of God . . . on
walls and on doors, in houses and by the highways . . . in proportion
as these are continually seen . . . so are the minds of the beholders
aroused to the remembrance of and affection for their prototypes;”

◦ Proskynesis was encouraged, “For he who worships an image
worships in it the person of him who is represented thereby.”


 Trent confirmed Nicaea II decrees;

 Trent confirmed Nicaea II definition of icons as signs
representing their prototypes;

 Implicitly confirmed that icons are neither sacraments
nor sacramentals, although they can become the latter
after being blessed by a member of the clergy.


 Stoglav Council (OC) – led by St Makarii
◦ (1) Icons must adhere to established models when depicting God;
(2) St Andrei Rublev’s Trinity as exemplar;
◦ (3) St John of Damascus, “Do not represent the divinity . . . because
the Godhead is simple and indivisible, inaccessible to the eye;”

 Stoglav seems to contradict Nicaea II, but it is not so:
◦ Both Stoglav and Nicaea II banned all depictions of God the
Father, based on His ousia - Stoglav banned it explicitly by referring
to St John’s words, Nicaea II banned it implicitly by defining icons as
representations not of the divine ousia.

◦ Neither Stoglav nor Nicaea II banned depicting the Father based on
His energeia.


 In all his writings on holy icons, St John of Damascus
never actually said the words that Stoglav reported;
◦ He was misquoted at Stoglav;

 Close, contextual reading of St John’s De fide
orthodoxa and On holy images shows that he never
considered the issue of depicting God the Father based
on His energeia, because his main focus was (1)
Christology rather than Patriology, (2) the divine nature
(ousia) rather than the divine energies (energeia);


 In speaking about God and icons, St John used the
following as basis for his arguments:
◦ (1) Dt 4:15 – “You have not seen his likeness;”
◦ (2) Acts 17:29 – “Being, therefore, the offspring of God, we
must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, the graving of art, the device of man;”
◦ (3) Jn 1:18 – “No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath
declared Him;”
◦ (4) Ex 33:20 – “No one shall ever see My face and live, saith
the Lord;”


 But St John (1) specifically referred to St Paul’s mention
of the divinity, for context;

 (2) Athanasius the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of
Alexandria, Gregory Palamas, Hippolytus of
Rome, John Chrysostom, Nicodemus the
Hagiorite, Symeon of Thessalonica defined the visions
of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Moses as theophanic;
◦ These had already been depicted on holy icons;


 (3) St John omitted to refer to Mt 11:27 - “No one
knows the Son except the Father, just as no one knows
the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son
chooses to reveal Him;”
◦ He chose only Jn 1:18 instead;

 (4) St John directly referred to the nature (ousia) of
God, when speaking about the Father, within the
context of repeatedly addressing the issue of latreia.


 Stoglav established Rublev’s Trinity icon as exemplar. But
this icon had been revealed, according to St Pavel
Florensky’s typology of icons;

 Contrary to widespread belief, Rublev did not replicate the
Trinity icon already in existence, and its ‘standard’
Trinitarian interpretation. Under the instruction of St Nikon
of Radonezh, Rublev specifically broke with tradition and
depicted the three, non-interchangeable, divine Persons
(Bunge, 2007, The Rublev Trinity);
◦ Rublev’s Trinity icon was written in honor of St Sergii, who had
experienced several theophanies.
◦ Florensky (1996, Iconostasis) himself called St Sergii the true author
of Rublev’s Trinity icon.


 Council of Moscow (OC) – also led by St Makarii
◦ (1) Icons of God the Father could be depicted, independently
or as part of the Trinity;
◦ (2) In keeping with Tradition, especially Athonite;
◦ (3) “The painters do not represent the Godhead invisible
according to His essence, but they portray and represent
according to the prophetic visions and the ancient Greek
models”

 Council of Moscow confirmed Nicaea II, despite
repeated attempts of some, to this day, to interpret
proceedings of this council in terms of sola patristica.


 Great (Pan-Orthodox) Council of Moscow (OC)
◦ “From now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be
painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for
no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the
Father) in the flesh . . . To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth with
a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a
dove between them is absurd and improper, for no one has
ever seen the Father in His divinity . . . This is why the Lord
Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all
ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be
perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint
such images: it is impossible.”


 Great Council based its decision on:
◦ (1) Mt 11:27 – “No one knows the Father except the Son;”
◦ (2) Is 40:18 – “What likeness will you find for God or what
form to resemble Him?”
◦ (3) Acts 17:29 – “We ought not to believe that the Godhead is
the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and
thought;”
◦ (4) St John of Damascus – “Who can make an imitation of God
the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, the
unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height
of folly and impiety;”


 Great Council also said:
◦ “They paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and
that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of
God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy
Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a
practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed
from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose
mind is deranged or absent . . . we decree that henceforth
such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound
knowledge. It is only in the Apocalypse of St John that the
Father can be painted with white hair, for lack of any other
possibility, because of the visions contained in it.”


 But Nicaea II (undivided Church) said:
◦ (1) “Holy images . . . be set forth in all the holy Churches of God . . .
on walls and on doors, in houses and by the highways . . . For, in
proportion as these are continually seen in images and pictures, so
are the minds of the beholders aroused to the remembrance of and
affection for their prototypes;”
◦ (2) Latreia is reserved for God alone, whereas proskynesis can be
paid to any sign representing its prototype;
◦ (3) Icons are “not like the original with respect to essence, but with
respect to hypostasis;”
◦ (4) “Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and
believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity Himself shaped
and impressed them . . . Anathema to those who do not accept the
visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which
have been seen by them, even before the Incarnation of the Word.”


 In effect, the Great Council of Moscow, in its decrees:
◦ (1) Ruptured with Tradition and the decrees of Nicaea
II, Trent, Stoglav, and the Council of Moscow on holy icons;
◦ (2) Erroneously conflated the divine ousia with energeia;

 Violated Nicaea II by:
◦ (3) Condemning icons of the Father, to facilitate proskynesis;
 Such icons and holy images are valid means of veneration and
relative worship to this day, in RCC – hermeneutic of continuity;
◦ (4) Not regarding icons as unlike the original, with regard to
essence;
 In On the holy icons, St Theodore the Studite confirmed that icons
are not like their prototypes, with regard to essence and nature.


 Both John Paul II (1999, Letter to artists) and Benedict
XVI (2000, The Spirit of the Liturgy) addressed the issue
of false rigidity in sacred art, and the false
sacramentalization of icons;

 Great Council of Moscow also violated Nicaea II when
it refuted the visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and
Moses as theophanic;
◦ These were already considered theophanic by multiple Church
Father and later saints, also considered as such by Nicaea II.


 Great Council also contradicted itself, in its own decrees, by
first stating that God the Father could never be depicted
because He had not become incarnate, then declaring that
He could be painted, but with a white beard, according to
visions of St John;
◦ Indirect, but explicit, admission by Great Council itself that it was
both valid and licit to depict the Father on holy icons, based on His
energeia, because the term “Father” refers specifically to the
hypostasis of the Almighty, not His divinity.

 Great Council based its decrees, in part, on what St John of
Damascus reportedly said;
◦ Words which he, in fact, never stated in De fide orthodoxa and On
holy icons.


 Decrees of the Great Council of Moscow are invalid, because
Church council decrees “cannot be accepted as expressing the
Tradition of the Church if they contradict the Seventh
Ecumenical Council [Nicaea II] as well as the constant practice of
the Church since Roman times” (Moss, 2002, The Icon of the
Holy Trinity);

 Great Council itself never declared icons of God the Father to be
a heresy.
 Sacred paintings of the Father abound in the Kremlin – heart of
Orthodoxy;

 Great Council itself is held by many to be a Robber Council;
◦ Convened by Tsar Alexis primarily to address ‘clergy shortcomings’ and
strip the Russian Orthodox Church of her patrimony.


The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1

Similar to The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1 (20)

The Icon of the Divine Heart of God the Father - Part 1