Blessing congregation using portrait of Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitonomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Digitonomy

Guest
At an outdoor Maronite Divine Liturgy this summer, I was surprised when toward the end of the liturgy the priest held up a portrait of the Virgin Mary, facing the congregation to the right, center, and left. Each part of the congregation crossed themselves as the portrait was turned to face them.

For some reason this struck me as wrong, as typically I see blessings not using images of saints, but performed by the priest as himself in persona Christi, or using images of Christ such as a crucifix, or sacramentals symbolizing God such as incense or holy water.

Is my Latin background limiting my appreciation for this practice, or is my instinct correct that this was inappropriate?
 
I don’t think this has anything to do with Latin instincts so much as North American ones… I doubt Latin American Latin Catholics would blink at a priest using an image of the Blessed Virgin to bless the congregation.
 
Whether or not ziah al adra (what you witnessed) is liturgically proper immediately after liturgy is one thing, but blessing with icons (note: it should be an icon, not a paper print out in a plastic frame as is the habit amongst Maronite parishes) and other holy objects is completely orthodox. If you were there for the whole liturgy, following the gospel the priest uses the gospel to bless the congregation, as well as after communion the priest uses the Eucharist to bless the people. You say blessings are persona Christi, but persona Christi is an almost exclusively Latin theological concept - the priest is mediating the blessing of God, hence why we use handcrosses and phrasing like “give the blessing, father, in the name of the Lord.” Likewise, when they do the ziah al adra, the blessing the priest gives is “Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, may the Lord bless you in the name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit +” not “I bless you through the intercession of Mary.”

I find the aversion to Eastern practices, like the above, is because Latin theology for the last few centuries developed with Protestantism continually in the background - hence the insistence that one must say we pray with, not to, the saints (despite in English if I tell someone the slightly archaic “I pray you…” I’m not saying I pray with you, but I pray to you that you do X).
 
MorEphrem said:
Whether or not ziah al adra (what you witnessed) is liturgically proper immediately after liturgy is one thing
Click to expand...
It’s certainly more proper after Mass concludes, as was the custom for centuries, than it is before Mass begins, as has come into fashion recently, at least in the Patriarchal Territories.
MorEphrem said:
but blessing with icons (note: it should be an icon, not a paper print out in a plastic frame as is the habit amongst Maronite parishes) and other holy objects is completely orthodox.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course it should be an icon. The paintings and prints commonly used are nothing but another persistent lainization.
 
MorEphrem said:
Whether or not ziah al adra (what you witnessed) is liturgically proper immediately after liturgy is one thing, but blessing with icons (note: it should be an icon, not a paper print out in a plastic frame as is the habit amongst Maronite parishes) and other holy objects is completely orthodox. If you were there for the whole liturgy, following the gospel the priest uses the gospel to bless the congregation, as well as after communion the priest uses the Eucharist to bless the people. You say blessings are persona Christi, but persona Christi is an almost exclusively Latin theological concept - the priest is mediating the blessing of God, hence why we use handcrosses and phrasing like “give the blessing, father, in the name of the Lord.” Likewise, when they do the ziah al adra, the blessing the priest gives is “Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, may the Lord bless you in the name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit +” not “I bless you through the intercession of Mary.”

I find the aversion to Eastern practices, like the above, is because Latin theology for the last few centuries developed with Protestantism continually in the background - hence the insistence that one must say we pray with, not to, the saints (despite in English if I tell someone the slightly archaic “I pray you…” I’m not saying I pray with you, but I pray to you that you do X).
Click to expand...
Your observations of Latin theology may be true, to some degree, in the Anglo world- but hardly globally. In Latin America processions with images of the Virgin remain widespread. No one down there would make the distinction of praying “with” rather than “too”. In the Dominican Republic, Protestants have been known to follow Catholic processions shouting “idolatry” because it is 100% intrinsic to Latin Catholicism in these regions to pray TO the Virgin, to bow down before her image singing praises to her holy name, to process through the streets in her honor, to walk miles and miles just to touch her miracle working icons…

I find many criticisms of “modern Latin theology” are limited to North America.
 
twf said:
I find many criticisms of “modern Latin theology” are limited to North America.
Click to expand...
Protestantism pervades practically everything in the culture here. Also Protestant coverts often bring over their prejudices and taboos. I’ve seen it here on CAF countless times.
 
twf said:
I find many criticisms of “modern Latin theology” are limited to North America.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are correct, but I’ve experience similar things in Europe. In all honesty, though, I have no firsthand experience of South America.
 
MorEphrem said:
I find the aversion to Eastern practices, like the above, is because Latin theology for the last few centuries developed with Protestantism continually in the background - hence the insistence that one must say we pray with, not to, the saints (despite in English if I tell someone the slightly archaic “I pray you…” I’m not saying I pray with you, but I pray to you that you do X).
Click to expand...
No argument about the underlying Protestant influences, but actually, I think what the cited expression says is “I ask you earnestly that you do X” where “pray” means something more like “prego” in Italian.

The concept of “pray with” is a bit strange to me, though, and I’m not so sure even the Latins get into it all that much. Rather, it seems to me there’s an entreaty to pray “for” us instead. In the various Latin litanies, e.g, the Holy Virgin or a particular Saint is asked to pray for us. Or, for another example, the versicle following the Salve Regina says “Pray for us O Holy Mother of God.”
 
twf said:
I don’t think this has anything to do with Latin instincts so much as North American ones… I doubt Latin American Latin Catholics would blink at a priest using an image of the Blessed Virgin to bless the congregation.
Click to expand...
It definitely doesn’t have to do with Latin instincts. Pope Francis himself gave the Final Blessing of Mass with the statue of Our Lady of Aparecida when he was in Brazil during the weeklong World Youth Day.

Seen here at 2:35:25 - youtube.com/watch?v=Y0zWCKpIofE
 
MorEphrem said:
Perhaps you are correct, but I’ve experience similar things in Europe. In all honesty, though, I have no firsthand experience of South America.
Click to expand...
As pointed out by Janeway, the Pope considers it a Latin practice…considering that he personally blesses crowds using images of the Blessed Virgin. That’s sufficient evidence for me.
 
twf said:
As pointed out by Janeway, the Pope considers it a Latin practice…considering that he personally blesses crowds using images of the Blessed Virgin. That’s sufficient evidence for me.
Click to expand...
Did I say it wasn’t?
 
Thanks for the clarification and all the discussion.
MorEphrem said:
(note: it should be an icon, not a paper print out in a plastic frame as is the habit amongst Maronite parishes)
Click to expand...
In this case it was a painted portrait, 2-3 feet square. But I’m curious what is your basis for determining that one thing is an icon, and another not? I recall back in the 90s reading about some variety of Orthodox monks in the US who printed out high quality scanned images of icons, said a blessing, and mailed them to whatever Eastern land apparently had fervent believers and poor quality printers.
 
Digitonomy said:
But I’m curious what is your basis for determining that one thing is an icon, and another not? I recall back in the 90s reading about some variety of Orthodox monks in the US who printed out high quality scanned images of icons, said a blessing, and mailed them to whatever Eastern land apparently had fervent believers and poor quality printers.
Click to expand...
Essentially intention. I would think ideally an icon should have the investment of artisan craft and effort (name removed by moderator)ut into it to be the most conducive to worship - it should convey a sense of reverence. A high quality printed pictures of icons might even pass, but most Maronite parishes in the US use low quality prints of portraits with signatures and titles written on the image. If one has a working understanding of the intent of icons it becomes apparent why poor quality prints and pictures with captions are unacceptable.
 
Digitonomy said:
Thanks for the clarification and all the discussion.In this case it was a painted portrait, 2-3 feet square. But I’m curious what is your basis for determining that one thing is an icon, and another not? I recall back in the 90s reading about some variety of Orthodox monks in the US who printed out high quality scanned images of icons, said a blessing, and mailed them to whatever Eastern land apparently had fervent believers and poor quality printers.
Click to expand...
Well there’s probably not one answer. Certainly just the fact that something is a print doesn’t stop it from being an icon. Traditionally speaking icons have a two dimensional style and will have a particular way of depicting individuals and subjects. What I mean by that, as an example, is an icon of Mary properly speaking will always have Christ in it. Also typically a saint will have a nimbus or halo around their head and Christ in particular has a specific nimbus that includes the Greek letters Ο ὤ Ν which basically means “I am” or “the one who is.”

That’s probably more than you wanted and is just part of what makes an icon. Needless to say if a painting is very realistic typically it would not be considered an icon. Of course there are exceptions.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Well there’s probably not one answer. Certainly just the fact that something is a print doesn’t stop it from being an icon. Traditionally speaking icons have a two dimensional style and will have a particular way of depicting individuals and subjects. What I mean by that, as an example, is an icon of Mary properly speaking will always have Christ in it. Also typically a saint will have a nimbus or halo around their head and Christ in particular has a specific nimbus that includes the Greek letters Ο ὤ Ν which basically means “I am” or “the one who is.”

That’s probably more than you wanted and is just part of what makes an icon. Needless to say if a painting is very realistic typically it would not be considered an icon. Of course there are exceptions.
Click to expand...
Well I do have a copy of the Theotokos without Jesus in it. The original was venerated by your patron, and mine. St Seraphim of Sarov. It resembles the Latin pictures of the Seven Dolors.
 
andrewstx said:
Well I do have a copy of the Theotokos without Jesus in it. The original was venerated by your patron, and mine. St Seraphim of Sarov. It resembles the Latin pictures of the Seven Dolors.
Click to expand...
Yes I don’t remember the name of that icon. I’m sure there are others too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top