CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
& LIVING

Was blind, but now I see.

5 : 1 January 2006

http://www.christianliteratureandliving.com
http://www.christliving.com

HOME PAGE


AN APPEAL FOR SUPPORT

PAYPAL

We invite you to support this ministry. Contributions in support of this Ministry can now be easily sent through PAYPAL. Please click on the PAYPAL LOGO, which will take you to PAYPAL website. Send your contributions to thirumalai@mn.rr.com. Also, please buy your books using the AMAZON link given in every page. Even the smallest contribution will help in running this journal.


In Association with Amazon.com


BOOKS FOR YOU TO READ
AND DOWNLOAD


BACK ISSUES


SEND YOUR ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION IN Christian Literature and Living.
  • E-mail your articles and book-length reports to thirumalai@mn.rr.com.
  • Your articles and booklength reports should be written, preferably, following the MLA Stylesheet.
  • The Editorial Board has the right to accept, reject, or suggest modifications to the articles submitted for publication, and to make suitable stylistic adjustments. High quality, academic integrity, ethics, and morals are expected from the authors and discussants.

Copyright for the journal © 2005
M. S. Thirumalai

ICON VENERATION AND ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY
M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.


EARLIER ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT - POSITIONS ON IDOL WORSHIP

I undertook a project some years ago to prepare a descriptive and narrative report on the evolution of Image and Idol Worship within the Church. This is an ongoing project, but I thought that some of the preliminary writing that I have done may be shared with others interested in this important aspect that affects our spiritual life, and evangelism among people who practice non-Christian religions. Earlier articles published in CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND LIVING can be accessed using the links given below.

CONSTANTINOPLE - A GREAT CENTER OF POWER AND ECCLESIASTIC WORK

Icon worship is an integral part of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. These churches developed in the eastern part of the Roman Empire with Constantinople as the center. Political separation of the Roman Empire began when Diocletian (A.D.285-293) started reorganizing the empire. Already there were political, cultural and linguistic differences prevailing between the parts of the Roman Empire. Constantine I, the first Christian emperor, shifted the capital of his empire to Byzantium (an old Greek colony on whose site the city of Constantinople was built) in A.D.330. From this date until its conquest by the Turks in 1453, Constantinople, for over eleven centuries, had been a great center of power and ecclesiastic work.

BISHOPS OF ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE

From the beginning the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not acceptable to the Bishop of Constantinople. The see at Constantinople asked for an equality of status. In this, the bishops in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem supported the see. This was yet another important reason for the difference that continued to grow between the churches in the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH

The Eastern Orthodox churches had produced most of the well-known early church fathers such as Ignatius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, to name a few. One may even say that until the seventh ecumenical council held in Nicaea, the leadership of the theological scholarship was with the Eastern Orthodox churches. It was by using the Eastern Orthodox churches that the Holy Spirit accomplished the conversion of the Slavs. However with the onslaught of Islam, the Eastern Orthodox churches began to lose their influence in the rest of the Christian world.

THE FILOQUE CONTROVERSY

The Filioque controversy was a major contributing factor for the split between the Eastern and the Western (Rome) churches.

The filioque position meant that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, whereas the Eastern churches emphasized Father as the fountainhead. However, they did not have any difficulty in accepting that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. The term filioque was adopted at the Toledo Council in 589 A.D. It was adopted officially in Rome in A.D.1000. This further separated the Eastern Churches from the western Roman Church.

THE SPLIT IS NOT MERELY DUE TO THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES

Generally speaking, the separation of the Church into the eastern and western churches was grounded both in non-religious and religious differences. The ecclesiastical differences could not be resolved because of evolving linguistic, temperamental, sociocultural and political trends. These trends used ecclesiastical differences to strengthen the growing differences between the East and the West.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches did not accept the decisions taken in the ecumenical councils held after the seventh council in Nicaea in A.D.787. The Eastern Orthodox churches strictly adhered to the old forms. Innovations were treated as heresies, and were looked upon with great suspicion. Liturgy, doctrines, and church administration all remained in the same manner and form. Thus, when the western church went in for the penitential system, sacerdotal celibacy, and absolute supremacy and infallibility of the pope, these churches did not follow suit. They remained self-governing churches, with no centralized organization. They were organized on the basis of patriarchates.

Some of the most popular patriarchates were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which were in existence before the II Nicaea Council. Other patriarchates added later on included Bulgaria, Serbia, Moscow, and Romania.

USE OF ICONS FOR WORSHIP

In these churches, icons were used for worship and meditation. Intercession, invocation and veneration of saints was followed and encouraged. The veneration of relics was also encouraged. The sacraments, the veneration of relics and icons united the worshipper with God. These visible and tangible means helped the union with God, according to the theology adopted in these churches. Liturgy played a central part in worship.

THE ICONS

Icons are pictorial representations, miniature representations of Christ, saints, or sacred events, in flat surface or in very low relief. These are ornamented and rich in details. These are used as objects of veneration in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The origin of the use of icons for veneration is shrouded in ambiguity; the Eastern Orthodox position is that the icon worship began very early and is a tradition, handed down by the apostles and the early church fathers.

Just as the image worship in the western Roman Catholic Church is supported based on unwritten early tradition, and extension of some of the practices of visual representations in the Bible, the icon worship in the Eastern churches also is believed to be based on tradition. Just as the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between image worship of Christ and the saints and the idol worship of the pagans, the Eastern orthodox churches also distinguish between the pagan idol worship and the worship of the icons of Christ and the saints.

ORIGION OF THE ICONS

The supporters of the veneration of icons trace the origin of icons in the Christian tradition to the time of the catacombs. The icon was a result of the Roman, Greek and Christian arts. Along with the use of the Cross as a mark of veneration and protection, the icon might have come into existence. It is also possible that making icons and showing veneration to them might have come from the early Christians in Alexandria in Egypt who were claimed to have been converted by Apostle Mark in A.D.70.

There is yet another tradition of Jesus himself miraculously imprinting his face in a linen for King Abgar. Thus the earliest icon of Jesus is claimed in this tradition to have been made without human hands. This tradition is comparable to the tradition, which claims that Jesus himself imprinted his face on Veronica's veil.

JUSTIFICATION FOR ICON AND ICON WORSHIP

Since God himself sent his exact likeness to the earth in Jesus Christ, the earlier prohibition of not portraying God in any form and material did not hold any more, according to the supporters of image and icon worship. Because there was a restriction against visually representing God, the emphasis was then on hearing. Now with God's incarnation, we not only have the opportunity of hearing his voice in the Scripture, but also visually representing him in the likeness of Jesus Christ, they claimed. Moreover, the tradition of Jesus himself imprinting his own face further made it an object or representation not made by human hands. The icon thus bears the natures of divinity as well as God's humanity. The veneration given is not for the material, but for the Person represented by the object. It is not claimed that the icon represented the Person exactly alike. It is just like preserving the words of Jesus Christ in writing; in the place of his words, the icons represent his image, so claimed the Theodore the Studios in the eighth century.

ICON - AN ESSENTIAL IN THE LIFE OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIAN

The icon plays a very crucial part in the life of an Eastern Orthodox Christian. At baptism the newly baptized may be given an icon of the patron saint whose name he or she bears. At marriage, the fathers of the spouses bless them with icons. The baptismal icon and the icon of the Virgin are in the front of the funeral procession. The icon is greeted whenever one enters home, even before the head of the family is greeted. Icons could be carried wherever one goes. In the church, lights and candles are lighted in honor of Christ and the saints, and their icons are kissed. One always feelS the presence of the icons within the church. the worshipper thus is not lonely within the church. No one is all alone in his prayer, because the icons of the saints do participate in the prayer of the faithful, because they are present within the church. The icons are a great aid for meditations. They in fact goad us into contemplation of the invisible. The House of God is a reflection of the cosmic order -- the ground level represents this world and the vault represents the celestial world. The sanctuary unites the heaven and the earth.

STRICT ADHERENCE TO TRADITIONAL STANDARDS IN MAKING ICONS

A strict adherence to tradition, which prescribes as to who and what should be portrayed and how these should be portrayed in the walls and ceilings of the church has been maintained since the eighth century. The icon of Christ Panatocrator is portrayed on the cupola of the church.

The Mother of God, the bridge between heaven and earth, is portrayed on the vault of the sanctuary. On the upper section, surrounding the altar, the angels in the posture of adoring are portrayed. On the lower level the eternal communion of the apostles is portrayed. In the rest of the mural space, the saints find a place. At the exit, one sees the portrayal of Last Judgment or the Dormition (Assumption) of the Mother of God.

ICONS FOR IMMEDIATE VENERATION

The icons on the stands within the church are for immediate veneration. The believers are not to kneel down or bend the knee before them. However the faithful make the sign of the Cross three times and say a short prayer, bowing down their heads before the icons. They venerate the icons with a kiss. There is an order maintained in this also. First they kiss the icon of Christ, followed by the kiss on the icon of the Mother of God, and then they kiss the icon of the day set by the liturgy cycle in the middle of the church. The icon is frequently incensed; it is also carried in procession.

ICONOSTASIS

Iconostasis is a very important segment of the liturgy within the church. It is a partition or screen ornamented with icons. Through historical developments, the iconostasis has taken the form raised up to the vault. It isolates the priest from the congregation; it separates the congregation from the altar. It blocks the view of the frescoes on the sanctuary walls. The Eastern Churches see in this partition the boundary between the sensual and temporal world and the spiritual world.

EMPHASIS ON TRADITION

The Eastern Orthodox churches do not approve of innovations in the icons. The painter of icons is expected to be humble and pious; he should have gentle manners and should be without sins such as drunkenness, envy, anger and so on. Spiritual and carnal purity is demanded of him. Note that requisites are demanded of the sculptors who make Hindu idols also, as we noticed in the first chapter.

The tradition emphasized in the making of icons is to be viewed not as a constraint for expressing artistic beauty but as a safeguard in favor of authenticity. It is the orthodoxy that should be represented, and not the innovations. Icon-making is not a secular art, but a sacred art, governed by theology. Both tradition and the teachings of the Church decide the structure and shape of the icon. The artist does not sign his name on the icon, because this would ascribe personal identity and distract the worshippers in their contemplation of the Deity.

ICON - A TRUE SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE OF THE LORD

The Eastern Orthodox Churches maintain that `the icon is a true sacramental of a personal presence.' This is a visible expression of the invisible, just as the sacrament is. For example, the icon of crucifixion does not represent any sadness, but is a witness to the presence of the Lord, in comparison with the western portrayal of the same in which the immediate is highlighted more than the real presence of the Lord. Often a comparison is made between the art of the western images and the icons, with a view to emphasizing the serenity claimed to be offered by the icons in contrast to its absence in the western images. Thus, asking the question why icons and not the images of the western art for meditation, Nouwen (1987:14) says:

The great treasures of Western art might indeed be more attractive, but I have chosen icons because they are created for the sole purpose of offering access, through the gate of the visible, to a the mystery of the invisible. Icons are painted to lead us into the inner room of prayer and bring us close to the heart of God.

Consider also what Nouwen says about the western spirituality in comparison with the spirituality emphasized in the eastern churches:

it is important to gaze at the icons with complete attention and to pray with them. Gazing is probably the best word to touch the core of Eastern spirituality. Whereas St.Benedict, who has set the tone for the spirituality of the West, calls us first of all to listen, the Byzantine fathers focus on gazing. this is especially evident in the liturgical life of the Eastern Church (Nouwen 1987:13).

ICON VERSUS IMAGE

The Eastern Orthodox Church distinguishes between the icons of the Eastern Church and the images of the Latin Church. As a monk of the Eastern Church points out, the icon is not intended to be a likeness of the personage it represents, like the image in the Catholic churches (A Monk:1987). The Orthodox Church claims that it strictly adheres to the command of the Decalogue, which enjoins us that we do not make for us any graven image or likeness (Exod. 20.4). The icon is claimed to be `a kind of hieroglyph, a stylized symbol, a sign, an abstract scheme'.

If an icon aims at reproducing the human features with clarity, it would be considered as straying from the canons accepted for iconographical representations by the Church. It is not the sensuous perception that is aimed at, it is understanding and comprehension beyond what is given by the material representation of the personages in the icon itself that is aimed at. In a way, the icon is to take a hostile posture against all sensual perception and is thus deliberately designed against intrusion and domination of the sensuous.

There is yet another difference seen between the icon and the Latin image or statue. `While the likeness is for the West a means of evocation and teaching, the Eastern icon is a means of communion. The icon is loaded with the grace of an objective presence; it is a meeting place between the believer and the Heavenly World'. This is the view taught by St. Theodore the Studite. In this sense, an icon could be set side by side with the Eucharist. But the official position, however, `entirely coincides with the attitude of the Latin Church (A Monk:1987).

ICON - NO NATURALISTIC REPRESENTATION

The icons do not aim at a naturalistic representation. In fact, the absence of naturalism is considered to be its great strength and a distinct mark of the sacred art within the Eastern tradition. `The characteristic absence of realism within authentic iconography serves to emphasize the spiritualization which is taking place. It goes without saying that what is purely "spiritual" cannot be drawn. To try to visualize or portray it by means of the "tangible" would be only to destroy it and contradict it' (Quenot 1991:87). A holy icon has the face looking at us, and is considered to be a face transfigured by divine grace. An icon offers the frontal view. In fact frontality is an essential characteristic of the icon, because it ensures an encounter between the worshipper and the Deity. Direct contact is established by this feature.

An icon or a cross does not exist simply to direct our imagination during our prayers. It is a material center in which there reposes an energy, a divine force, which unites itself to human art (Quenot 1991).

Note that this characterization of the icon/image is radically different from the Roman characterization of the same. Note also that this characterization is much closer, rather, identical to, the iconic/iconographic views of the Hindu texts, of which I referred to in my first article(Idols and Idol Worship).

THE CANONS FOR MAKING ICONS

The canons of the sacred art of making icons focus their attention on the body, face, parts of the face and color and such other details of the icon and ensure their oneness of purpose. The claim of the Eastern Churches is that the freedom the artists have in making the icons is much greater than the freedom the artists have in the western church and in the secular world. The icon artists could easily transcend the time and space constraints, because of the sacred art, a claim is made.

WORD OF GOD, LITURGY AND ICON

The Eastern Orthodox Churches assume that the Word of God, the liturgy and the icon are intimately linked together. `The Word of God has in the icon a irreplaceable support, because the icon offers a more vivid revelation of the mystery that the Word proclaims' (Quenot 1991:119). Icon provides us an opportunity to witness to the Incarnation. The icon is an image of purity among the competing images which surround and defile us all over, the corrosive images of this world. Icon represents the transfiguration of humanity. The personages represented in the icons are filled with divine grace, and their presence makes the entire atmosphere pure and holy. It demands in us a different sort of vision, as it is lacking in naturalism. The Christian is encouraged to become a living icon of the Lord.

The sign of the cross, holy water, the words of Scripture, the ecclesiastical chant, the ornaments of the church, incense and lighted candles are all taken to be symbols. They are material signs of the presence of the spiritual world, according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Ritual symbolism represents and reminds the worshippers of the spiritual realities. The liturgical symbols represent the whole range of God's incarnation and stages in his saving grace bestowed upon man. For example, the ascent of the presiding bishop to the altar and to his throne is considered to be an image of the ascension of Christ. The entry of the assistant ministers is taken to symbolize the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church and so on. In other words, every step and stage in the liturgy is taken to symbolize some part or the other of the process of extending God's grace to the fallen man. Every step in the liturgy is seen to be impregnated with a parallel in the life and ministry of the Lord and symbolic of the things to come, within the eastern Churches. The real presence through symbolism, and not through any naturalism, is the underlying principle.

Tradition is seen to have a pneumatological character. Truth does not have no external criterion. It `manifests of itself and is made inwardly plain..... By the power which it holds from Christ the Church proclaims that which the Spirit reveals. But the function of defining, of stating, of causing mysteries which are unfathomable to human understanding to be contained in exact dogmas, this belongs to the Christological aspect of the Church, that aspect which is grounded upon the Incarnation of the Word.' Accordingly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in the symbolic values of the liturgical acts and insist upon strict adherence to such symbolic acts. The entire doctrine behind icon making and icon worship is part of this basic assumption. The Church's festivals are no exception to this. These enable the participants to participate `in the events of Christ's earthly life on a deeper level than that of mere historical fact.' We are no more spectators, but are true witnesses but are participants and true `witnesses enlightened by the Holy Spirit.'

OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE PRESENCE OF GRACE

The Eastern Orthodox Church finds, in a manner of speaking, that there are two aspects, rather two orders of grace -- one objective presence, and another order of grace in the Church, with a more inward, not merely external and functional presence of grace, wherein grace is made one with the very being that bears it, wherein grace is acquired, appropriated by the person, becoming personal.

If, in the first instance, the presence of grace has an objective character, one would like to say of the second that it is subjective, did not this word suggest a somewhat unfortunate notion of uncertainty. Rather would we say that the first presence is based on a predetermination, while the second is founded upon an election. Such are the manifestations of grace in relics, in places sanctified by appearances of the Virgin or by the prayer of saints, in holy wells, in wonder-working images, charismatic gifts and miracles; finally, in the saints, in those human persons who have made the presence their own. This is the grace which works in persons and through persons as though it were their own strength--the divine and uncreated power appropriated by human persons in whom union with God is brought to pass. For the Holy Spirit bestows divinity upon human persons called to realize in themselves this deifying union. This mystery will be revealed in the age to come but its first-fruits show themselves even now in those who give themselves to God (Lossky 1976:191).

EMERGENCE OF OPPOSITION AGAINST IDOL WORSHIP

As we have seen so far, there had been a move towards idol/image/icon worship in a steady form within the sections of Christian church, especially since the conversion of Constantine I and consequent official patronage to and recognition of Christianity within the Roman Empire.

However, there had also been voices against every form of visual representation of the Deity and other Christian personages. Apart from opposition to the visual representation, opposition to veneration and adoration of these objects was also made. However the practice of depicting the Deity and the other Christian personages in visual representation and paying homage to such created objects became more widely prevalent. Several of the church fathers looked upon it with approval and provided justification for this practice. Thus, a theology of visual representation of the Deity and other personages and veneration of such created objects was in operation, however with no ecumenical council decision explicitly in its favor, until Nicaea II.

THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

During the eighth and ninth centuries, a serious controversy arose, especially in Asia Minor (the peninsula forming the western extremity of Asia between Black Sea on the north, mediterranean sea on the south and the Augean sea on the west), as regards the worship of the visual representations of the Deity and other Christian personages. The Iconoclastic orientation of this Opposition did not approve any form of visual representations and their worship. The iconoclasts questioned the religious function, meaning and relevance of image-making and image worship.

During this period, the iconoclastic movement was not without political overtones. In A.D.726, the Byzantine emperor, Leo III, was against idol worship and idol worship was officially prohibited. Persecution of those who worshipped the visual representations of the Deity and the Christian personages commenced with great severity during the reign of Constantine V (741-775), the successor to Leo III. It was during the reign of Constantine V that a council was convened by the iconoclasts at Constantinople in the year A.D.754. The iconoclasts styled this council as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, whereas it was called a mock council by the adherents of idol/image worship. Leo IV, son of Constantine V, who succeeded his father, continued the same policy, except allowing monasticism, and appointing bishops from among the head of monasteries. He, however, died soon, and Constantine VI, the infant, became the emperor.

The mother of the infant emperor, Irene, was the guardian of the emperor and was the Empress. Irene was devoted to image worship. The iconoclasts were routed with the ascension of the empress Irene to power. She and her son Constantine VI convened the Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) in A.D.787, whose deliberations, decisions and decrees we presented in the earlier chapter. It should be noted that the iconoclasts did indeed regain power in A.D.814 after Leo V's accession.

Leo V was of a mixed Syrian and Armenian descent. The absence of any support for image worship in the Scripture was cited by the emperor for his stance against image worship. He argued also that image worship in the Church was the reason for the pagan military success against the Christian empire. He used the soldiers and people opposed to image worship to bring down the images from what he called the religious abuse. The iconoclasts held yet another council in A.D.815. However, the second iconoclastic period came to an end with the death of Theophilus in A.D.842. The next year, the widow of Theophilus restored icon veneration and gave royal patronage to it.

MOTIVATION FOR THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

The Iconoclastic Controversy, in a way, marked the beginning of the Middle Ages, more especially in terms of the search for freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the established Church's methods of suppressing such efforts, on the other. Ultimately, the iconoclastic controversy helped further consolidate the political influence the clergy had over the secular powers. Iconoclasm was considered a heresy and suppressed ruthlessly, just as the proponents of the iconoclasm themselves had ruthlessly eliminated idolatry and all powers that supported image worship.

Iconoclastic Controversy is seen by the historians as a mixture of both religion and politics, with politics taking an upper hand and religion playing the role of a maid in the process. The Controversy is also seen as a conflict between the Western political power and the Eastern rulers. The proponents of iconoclasm had been uniformly described as having no solid theological orientation. They did not go `beyond a measure of common-sense interpretation of Scripture and a common-sense rejection of the more extravagant eccentricities of popular devotion' (Martin 1930:4). This criticism is based more on the fact of the iconoclasts resorting to force, and not on theological elucidation, in the elimination of the idols.

Leo III is ascribed several motives for initiating and carrying through his iconoclastic movement. First of all, his Asiatic environment, which with the growth of Islam emphasized iconoclasm. The causative role assigned to the influence of Islam for the emergence of iconoclasm within the Eastern empire has been, however, questioned by some scholars. For example, Grabar (1977) states that `there is no real need for Islam to explain Byzantiusm.' Two equally potent attitudes toward the visual world, one in favor of representation of living beings and another against it, `one which seeks the relationship between the thing made and its subjects or functions, and the other one which seeks to emphasize the relationship between works of art and their viewers and users' always existed, according to Grabar (1977:52).

Secondly, Leo's desire to have a simple religion. Thirdly, an assertion of the role of the emperor as a church official. Finally, a desire to raise `the tone of society.' It was during the rule of Leo III's son, Constantine V, the iconoclasts' council in Constantinople was convened.

The iconoclasts considered image worship as idolatry. They did not agree to the tradition, by then established, that idols of the pagans were to be treated different from the images of the Christians. The iconoclasts considered that the visual representation of the Deity in any form was against the Person of Christ. Moreover, they did not agree to the use of precedents and traditions, which sanctioned such visual representations.

THE ICONOCLASTIC ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The iconoclasts who assembled in Constantinople in A.D.754 called the worship of idols, images and icons and such other visual representations as acts inspired by Satan. Satan had misguided men and that was how men worshipped the creation rather than the Creator. The Law given to Moses and the sayings of the prophets were intended to set right this aberration. That could not be accomplished, however. the Iconoclastic Council argued that God sent his own Son to accomplish this. The Son turned us away from the error of worshipping of idols, and taught us to worship God in spirit and in truth. The apostles, and disciples gave us the same doctrine. The holy fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils had preserved this mandate. However, the enemy would not tolerate this and had brought back idolatry into the Church, in a gradual fashion, the Council declared. The very same Christ who worked through the disciples and apostles to overthrow idolatry had now kindled in the faithful Emperors `the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons'. So, they had summoned the Council to

`institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful coloring of the pictures (..Gr. word) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (..Gr. word) of God to the low and material adoration (.....) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject...'

PAINTING LIVING CREATURES - AN UNLAWFUL ART

Having thus stated the need for the council, the participants declared that `the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation --namely, Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods.....' The Council declared that the relationship between the Father and the Son was one of `unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person.' When this was so, how could one depict Christ? This was sheer folly of the painter, who did this `from sinful love of gain.' The painter depicted that which should not be depicted. That is, `with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth?' (Note that the blame here is ascribed to the painter/idol making artisan; the theologian will come later on.) Foolishly the painter called his creation Christ.

The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy -- the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood.

THE FALSE CLAIMS OF IMAGE MAKER AND IMAGE WORSHIPPER

The Iconoclastic Council claimed that the position of the image maker and the worshipper that they represented only the flesh of Christ was totally wrong. These claimed that they represented what they saw and handled. The flesh they saw was also of God and could not be separated from the divine nature:

For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man?

This amounted to introducing a fourth person into the Trinity, the Iconoclasts declared. Thus,

Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and a person apart, like the Nestorians.

VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF CHRISTIAN PERSONAGES

Perhaps some one would argue that while this was alright with regard to the representation of the Deity, this could not be applied to the representation of Mary, the Mother of God and the other saints. The Iconoclastic Council answered this by saying that since Christianity had rejected the whole of Christianity, both sacrifices and image worship, there was no ground to bring the heathen practice into Christianity.

If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter.

WORSHIP GOD IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH

The iconoclastic council cited the Scripture which stated that God is Spirit and that we should worship him in spirit and truth. It cited several other verses also which related to the prohibition of making and worshipping graven images. The council cited also from the writings of the church fathers in support of its position against making and worshipping images. It declared unanimously that `there shall be rejected and removed and cursed out of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and color whatever by the evil art of painters.'

The iconoclastic council declared that none among the laity or the clergy or the nobility be allowed to have the images and venerate them, not only in the churches but in their private houses also. However, it prohibited all from taking possession of the vessels, furnishings and such other properties of the church on the ground that these contained visual representations of the Christian personages and destroying them. It gave permission to the individual churches to alter them with the permission of the council.

ANATHEMAS OF THE ICONOCLASTIC COUNCIL

The Iconoclastic Council decreed several anathemas. Of these the following were directly relevant to the veneration of images:

`If anyone ventures to represent the divine image of the Word after the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema!

`If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colors by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the incarnation he (that is , the Word) cannot be depicted let him be anathema!

`If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, let him be anathema!

`If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavors to represent it separately in a picture, let him be anathema!

`If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavors to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative union of the natures, let him ba anathema!

`If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, let him be anathema!

`If anyone endeavors to represent by material colors, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavors to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema!

`If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, let him be anathema!

`If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colors which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!

VIOLENCE IN ICONOCLASM

The iconoclastic controversy, as already, stated was both political and religious, in its operation. Even in its beginnings, it had some political overtones, although it was motivated by a desire for the simplification of religion. The Eastern ruler, Leo III, influenced by the monotheism and iconoclasm of the Muslim religion, found no support for image worship in the Scripture. He, however, resorted to force in removing the images and pursued a policy of severity towards image worshippers. The monasteries were special targets of attack. In return, when the image worshippers gained control, they saw to it that iconoclasm was declared a heresy and that it was put down with a heavy hand. We should note, however, both the parties did recognize the pre-eminence given to Mary, the Mother of God, and the intercessory roles and functions assigned to the saints. The moves and counter-moves among the parties involved in the iconoclastic controversy are clearly a subject matter of great interest who would like to study in depth the political and religious schisms.

RESURGENCE FOR THE THEOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF IMAGES

The Iconoclastic controversy brought forth two theologians in support of the veneration of images. John of Damascus was the chief spokesman for the supporters of image worship in the first phase of the iconoclastic controversy. He was the leading light in the Seventh ecumenical council held in Nicaea in 787. Theodore of Studios (Theodore the Studite) was the chief spokesman for the image worshippers during the second phase of the controversy. We have seen already some of the thoughts of John of Damascus in the previous chapter when we presented the deliberations and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.

THEODORE OF STUDIOS IN SUPPORT OF IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP

Theodore of Studios was born in Constantinople in A.D.759 when Contantine V, the most severe iconoclast emperor, was in power. Instead of pursuing a career in imperial bureaucracy, Theodore entered monastic life. The three treatises Theodore wrote continue to be the main anchor on which the support for icon worship is based in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

TRINITY - A COMPOUND OF THE UNCOMBINABLE

Theodore of Studios argued that in the Trinity there was a `mixture of the immiscible, a compound of the uncombinable...of the formless with the well-formed (p.21).' And for this reason, we could depict Christ in images, and we could see the invisible. We should not say that God is circumscribed in visually representing him in the images, for Godhead remained uncircumscribed in being circumscribed in his death. `The properties of the uncircumscribable nature are those in which Christ is recognized to be God, while the properties of the circumscribed nature are those in which he is confessed to be man.'

SCRIPTURAL VERSES AGAINS ONLY PAGAN IDOLS

Theodore claimed that the scriptural verses were misused by those who opposed image worship. These verses were spoken against the pagan idols, and thus could not be applied to the icons which represented God. The idol was darkness, the icon the light. The idol was deceptive, the icon infallible. The idol belongs to polytheism, the icon is `the clearest evidence of divine economy.' Theodore asserted that the icon worshippers did not equate the image with the person it represents. Christ was one thing and his image was another thing by nature, but these had mutual identity by name.

SIGHT AND HEARING: EQUALITY OF SENSES INTHE WORSHIP OF GOD

Theodore argued that whether we venerate God by sight or by hearing, each of these modes could both help and harm the process:`So whether in image, or in the Gospel, or in the cross, or in any other consecrated object, God is evidently worshipped "in spirit and in truth," as the materials are exalted by the raising of the mind toward God. The mind does not remain with the materials, because it does not trust in them: that is the error of the idolatrors. Through the materials, rather, the mind ascends toward the prototypes: this is the faith of the orthodox.' Thus, one of the chief arguments of Theodore of Studios was based on the equality of senses and an assertion that both the senses, hearing and sight, were needed for worship. In a later section (section 19 in the First Refutation of Iconoclasts), Theodore showed his preference for the sense of sight over the sense of hearing. He called sight as `the more noble sense.'

A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND VENERATION

Theodore of Studios distinguished between worship and veneration. Worship was unique and to be given only to God, whereas veneration could be paid to others. The distinction between the two lay in the intent of the person who offered these and to whom these were offered. They were, however, same in their outward form. When the same was offered to God, it became worship; when it was offered to others it became veneration. The custom and tradition had sanctioned this approach, according to Thedore.

The First Refutation of Iconoclasts by Theodore of Studios ended with several anathemas. These reiterated that the veneration paid to the icon was different from the worship of idols; that when the image of Christ was displayed it should be given its relative veneration; that the Scriptural prohibitions of idols did not apply to the icons of Christ; that no one could be raised to the vision of the protype only by hearing; that one should give the same respect to the visual/silent monument as to the narration in speech; that the icons of the Mother of God and the saints should be venerated.

DEPICTION IS EQUALLY GOOD FOR EDUCATION AND MEMORY

Some had agreed that depiction was good and useful for education and memory, and not for veneration. Theodore of Studios set out to answer this position in his Second Refutation of the Iconoclasts. He argued that Christ was the prototype of his image, and that the fathers had clearly declared it to be so. There were many teachings not written in so many words in the Scripture, but had been proclaimed by the fathers. For example, it was the fathers who made it clear that `the Son is consubstantial with the Father, that the Holy Spirit is God, that the Lord's mother is Theotokos, and other doctrines which are too many to list (p.47).'

when Christ is venerated, His image is also venerated, because it is in Christ; and when His image is venerated, Christ is venerated, for He is being venerated in it.........So what is said applies to the name only and the identity of veneration, not to an identity of material between the prototype and the image; for the material cannot participate in the veneration, although he who is depicted appears in it for veneration.(p.56)

VENERATION OF THE CROSS - HONOR WITHOUT VENERATION?

Theodore of Studios pointed out that the iconoclasts did honor the Cross. Even if the Cross were to be treated only as a symbol, the relationship between the original cross and its representation was similar to the relationship between the icon and the personage it represented. Then, the iconoclasts claimed that veneration and honor were two different things. Theodore argued that none could show honor without showing veneration.

WHATEVER WAS TREATED HOLY WAS VENERABLE

Theodore of Studios rejected any patristic authority for iconoclasm by saying that the texts which forbade the erection of the images of the Lord or the Mother of God or of the sainst were just heretical interpolations:

For evidence, moreover, that we have received from the apostles themselves and have preserved up to the present time the tradition of erecting the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Theotokos, and of any of the saints -- raise your eyes, look around, and see everywhere under heaven, throughout the sacred edifices and the holy monuments in them, these images depicted and necessarily venerated in the places where they are depicted. Even if there wee no dogmatic reason nor voices of inspired fathers to uphold both the erection and the veneration of icons, the prevailing ancient tradition would be sufficient for confirmation of the truth. Who can presume to oppose this tradition? (p.74-75)

IMAGE - A CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF FATHER?

In his Third Refutation of the Iconoclasts, Theodore of Studios continued his arguments to show that God the Father was uncircumscribed, the Son in Jesus Christ was circumscribed, because he came as man. Since the Son came as man, he had form, appearance, and color. The former was uncirumscribable in divinity, whereas the latter was circumscribable in humanity, Theodore explained.

When anyone is portrayed, it is not the nature but the hypostasis which is portrayed. For how could a nature be portrayed unless it were contemplated in a hypostasis? For example, Peter is not portrayed insofar as he is animate , rational, mortal, and capable of thought and understanding; for this does not define Peter only, but also Paul and John, and all those of the same species. But insofar as he adds along with the common definition certain properties, such as a long or short nose, curly hair, a good complexion, bright eyes, or whatever else characterizes his particular appearance, he is distinguished from the other individuals of the same species. Moreover, although he consisists of body and soul, he does not show the property of soul in the appearance of his form: how could he, since the soul is invisible? The same applies to the case of Christ. It is not because He is man simply (along with being God) that He is able to portrayed; but because He is differentiated from all others of the same species byu His hypostatic properties. He is crucified and has a certain appearance. Therefore Christ is circumscribed in respect to His hypostasis, though uncircumscribable in His divinity; bu the natures of which He is composed are not circumscribed. (p.90-91)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND HIS IMAGE

Theodore of Studios concluded that because Christ was circumscribed, he had an artificial image. Every image would have a relation to its archetype. The relation that existed between Christ and the Father was a natural relationship, because of their consubstantial essence. The relationship between Christ and the image made of him was an artificial relationship.`The artificial image is the same as its archetype in likeness, but different in essence, like Christ and His icon.' It was this artificial image that one venerated and it was through this artificial image worship passed on to the protype.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTYPE AND IMAGE

Theodore insisted, however, that the prototype was not essentially found in the image. The prototype and the image were not identical. Each had different natures. `The prototype is in the image by the similarity of hypostasis, which does not have a different principle of definition for the prototype and for the image.....The essence of the image is not of a nature to be venerated, although the one who is portrayed appears in it for veneration. Therefore thee is no introduction of a different kind of veneration, but the image has one and the same veneration with the prototype, in accordance withthe identity of likeness.' (p.103). Theodore asserted time and again that one did not venerate the essence of the image, but only the form of the prototype that was stamped on it. That is, one should ignore the material and seek the form of the prototype in the image.

ART - PERFECT AND IMPERFECT

Then, how about imperfect art? This did not change the position, said Theodore. In this argument, Theodore opened and asserted the possibility for a lack of naturalism in the representation of Christ and other personages in the icons. Theodore said:

Even if we grant that the image does not have the same form as the prototype because of insufficient artistic skill, still our argument would not be invalid. For veneration is given to the image not insofar as it falls short of similarity, but insofar as it resembles its prototype. In this degree the image has the same form as the prototype; and the objects of veneration are not two, but one and the same, the prototype in the image. The same is true of the symbol of the cross in relation to the life-giving cross itself. In this case also the depiction does not have exactly the same form as the archetype, in length and width or any other relationship, because it is represented differently. (p.104)

Note that the arguments were made based on the veneration of Cross which had been acceptable to the Iconoclasts. Such arguments lead Theodore to conclude that the veneration of the image is the veneration of the prototype: `If he who has seen the image sees in it the likeness of the prototype, then who venerates the image necessarily venerates in it the appearance of the prototype. But since the likeness is one, the veneration of both must also be one (p.107).' The veneration of the image was the veneration of Christ, except that the material in which the image was made was not venerated at all, Theodore of Studios claimed.

NO VENERATION OF IMAGE, NO VENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST

If one did not venerate the images, he did not venerate Christ at all, argued Theodore of Studios:

The prototype and the image have their being, as it were, in each other. With the removal of one the other is removed, just as when the double is removed the half is removed along with it. If, therefore, Christ cannot exist unless His image exists in potential, and if, before the image is produced artistically, it subsists always in the protype: then the veneration of Christ is destroyed by anyone who does not admit that His image is also venerted in Him (p.110).

ICONOGRAPHY - A DIVINE ACTION?

Not only this. The image of Christ became `more conspicuous to all when it appears by imprinting itself in materials (p.113).' Theodore considered iconography a divine action (p.101) because man was made in the image and likeness of God. He also held that sight preceded hearing `both in the location of its organ and in the perception of the senses' (p.78).

Thus, the apologia for the veneration of images started with the assertion of the need for involving the visual mode and its supremacy over the hearing mode. It based its arguments in support of image worship on the incarnation of Jesus Christ which circumscribed him in his humanity and thus made passible the depiction of the divinity. Since there is some relationship between the prototype and the image, veneration of the image becomes veneration of the divinity. If the image is not worshipped, one does not worship God. Iconography is elevated as a work of divine action.

CLICK HERE FOR PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION


The Primary Purpose of the Book of Revelation | The Greatest Servant | The Law of Give & Take! | Steering Clear of Shipwreck - 1 Timothy 1:18b-19 | Icon Veneration and Iconoclastic Controversy| Walk In Christ's Wonderful Liberty! | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR


M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.
Bethany College of Missions
6820 Auto Club Road, Suite C
Bloomington, MN 55438, USA
thirumalai@bethanyinternational.org

Google

Sharing Your Faith with a Buddhist, a book on evangelism by M. S. Thirumalai


Solitary Poet, Poems of Reflection by Stan Schmidt.


Sharing Your Faith with Hindus by M. S. Thirumalai.

A NOVEL BY FAITH DAEHLIN: THEY WILL HAVE VISIONS AND DREAMS.


Send your articles
as an attachment
to your e-mail to
thirumalai@mn.rr.com. You must give your e-mail address in the body of your article, and also a declaration that the article is not published earlier. We do not accept the previously published articles for publication in CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND LIVING, except under special circumstances and contexts.