Their claim is that this image is heretical and has no place
in Christian tradition. That may make you blink a little, as it did me: it’s
quite a statement to make, as the picture looks entirely innocuous, touching
even. But the argument is this: that it attempts to corral the truth of the
Incarnation, that God is come among us and that human life is therefore
transformed, into an essentially worldly agenda by creating an image of the
eternal Son embedded into a human family, rather
than a human family changed by the eternal Son coming into it. It makes
Christ marginal in his own story, makes him the son of the couple called Mary
and Joseph, rather than the everlasting Second Person of the Trinity to bear and care for whom their vocation
is. The website then links this with arguments about the perpetual virginity of
Mary, arguments which go back a long, long way (those who doubted it on the
basis of some passages of Scripture were ‘enemies of Mary’, said St John
Climacus in the 6th century), but I think these are a bit beside the
point, especially as I don't have much of a problem with the idea of Mary having borne children after Jesus.
It was a point which had its effect, though, I have to say.
As I looked at the Holy Family icon I could see more and more what this faintly
extreme corner of Orthodoxy meant. That image, of Mary embracing Jesus and Joseph
embracing them both in an attitude of fatherly, husbandly concern, may well be
what happened historically, but that’s not what icons are supposed to depict:
they delineate heavenly, not earthly realities, eternal dogmas and not the
fleeting accidents of what happens here. And in heaven Jesus is the focus, Mary
is eternally his mother, and Joseph looks on supportively from the side. This
is not an ordinary family, nor should it be reorganised to serve propaganda that
elevates the human family into a religious principle.
So I won’t be using that image. Instead I found this one,
from the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem (where better), and that seems
more correct.
I think that the first images are profoundly Christian. One of the stunning things about Christ's first coming was that he came as a babe, as human as any other. And like any human baby, he needed his family, as a family.
ReplyDeleteThat was my first thought. But I decided that no, the Orthodox are right and it's an ideological image, promoting a particular view of the centrality of the human family unit, and not the Incarnation at all, regardless of how it appears.
ReplyDeleteIconology must always follow the Church's specific canons. These safeguards were not arbitarily established. They protect Divinely revealed Truths of the Faith; such as the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Theotokos. As seemingly "innocuous" as the placement of Saint Joseph's upon Mary of Nazareth's shoulder may appear to some (espcially the poorly catechized), the erroneous conclusions and confusion that the mere presence that such a pseudo-icon will inevitably create, merits the total rejection of such heterodox images.
ReplyDelete