www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New UGCC Catechism Reaffirms Papal Infallibility?

The following text, which is taken from Fr. Casimir Kucharek's book The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (pages 228-230), touches upon the Eastern Catholic / Eastern Orthodox doctrine of sacred icons:



There is a fundamental difference between Byzantines and Westerners in the interpretation of sacred images. The latter merely regard them as representations of one whose presence is elsewhere, in heaven. For the Byzantine Christian, the icon is a veritable theophany, a dynamic manifestation of divine energy at work on earth. The person represented is in some spiritual way actually present in the icon. From this presence flow streams of grace upon the sinful world, purifying and sanctifying it.

How [does one] explain this mysterious presence in the icon? To define this presence would be as difficult as explaining the Shekinah or the mysterious presence of Christ amid two or three gathered together in His name (Matt. 18:20). Yet such a presence was no less true. The mystical teaching concerning icons stems from the master idea of all Eastern typology, the idea of the Church building as "Heaven on earth." Gregory of Nyssa was probably the first to set out the main lines of such teaching. His doctrine was taken up and developed by others. The author of the eighth-century Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Contemplatio, for example, expresses it boldly: "The heaven wherein the Triune God lives and moves on earth is the Christian holy place, the Church. . . ." The presence of heaven passed easily from the Church to the icon.

The West never understood the iconoclastic controversy. It did not see the veneration of icons as a dogmatic matter but simply as a disciplinary matter. The Byzantine East, on the other hand, saw clearly in the decision of the seventh general council a contribution toward a better understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation or, more precisely, the mystery of God's communication of Himself to the world and to man in particular. That is why iconography was always such a serious science. It was never merely an art form. To be worthy of the task, the ancient icon painters prayed and fasted for days before taking up their brush – only then could they communicate the Divine through their image-making. Because icons represent human forms that have been "regenerated into eternity," holy bodies of persons transformed, transfigured by grace in prayer, iconographers attempted to convey theological meanings through symbolical colors and forms. Saints, for example, are represented facing forward so that their entire face is showing, for a spiritual man cannot be incomplete, with one eye only. "A soul that has been illuminated by divine glory," teaches Macarius the Great, "becomes all light and all face. . . and has no part with that which is behind but stands altogether facing forward."



P.S. - If you would like I will post excerpted texts from several other books on icons - by Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and even non-Catholic scholars - all of which affirm that sacred images contain divine energy according to the teaching of the iconodule Fathers. It will take some time to post the texts, because I have to transcribe them from my book in my library, but I will do it if it will be of help to you in understanding the Orthodox doctrine of icons.

That is false, the likeness of hypostasis is what empowers the icon to become a vehicle of the energies of the one depicted it it. It was the iconoclasts who denied this possibility. I think you need to re-read both St. John and St. Theodore.

This is exactly russian style of icon theology, originated from Ouspensky and Florovsky.

My teacher wont agree with that and with him I too. It's not the theology of the byzantine fathers of iconoclastic period.

If hypostatic similarity conveys personal energy, what happens with devil represented in icons? What about normal people of biblical events?

I do not honor the image in an icon but I honor him represented in it, its prototype.

No, it is the teaching of St. John and St. Theodore. So far you have simply asserted that your professor, and I have no idea who he is by the way, is more important that St. John and St. Theodore.

Now with that out of the way: when I have quoted Ouspensky? I have not; instead, I have quoted St. John and St. Theodore, and you have quoted no one.

And I do not know your professor from Adam. I do not care what he thinks, but I do care what the Holy Fathers teach on the matter.

Hypostatic likeness creates a real connection between the prototype and its image.

The Iconoclastic heretics would have agreed with you, but I do not. I honor the image and that honor is shared with its prototype because they form a single complexus, for to paraphrase what St. John said in his defense of holy images . . . the image and prototype receive one and the same glory.

To have the same energy it has to have the same hypostasis then. One cannot claim that there is hypostatic identity in an image and its prototype. All we have is similarity.

The issue in iconoclastic controversy was simply the possibility in representing the divine incarnated Logos in an image. Nothing more.

Below is a link to a paper I wrote at San Francisco State University many years ago. My views at that time have not changed in any substantive sense over the intervening years:

The Sin of Idolatry
and
The Catholic Concept of
Iconic Participation [web.archive.org]

Honestly, you seem very confused. The energy of the prototype is present within, and moves through, its hypostatic likeness.

Moreover, an icon is not just any little thing. If someone set before me a house plant and an icon I would not treat them in the same manner. The icon is a sacred object worthy of veneration because it is holy, that is, it contains within itself divinity through participated likeness, which is why it should be venerated. The house plant does not bear this same meaning, and so it would be foolish to venerate it. I think you need to re-read St. John and St. Theodore, and pay less attention to your professor.

What school do you go to? I ask this so that I know which one to avoid in the future.

Moreover, the Iconoclasts demanded that the object of veneration had to share the essence of its prototype, which is why they allowed only veneration of the Eucharist (they didn't deny the Real Presence). But the Eucharist, as Christ, is not venerated but adored. Yet an icon of Christ is not worshipped, but venerated, as it does not share His essence.

It is more with you iconoclasts will agree rather then with me, because the issue with them was exactly the icons being a mistery of God, representing nature and grace, which they denied and held it for idolatry.
The fathers on the contrary responded that the issue is not about representing nature at all. The issue was about representing human characteristics of the incarnated Logos, which made Him differ from other human beings.

Other, the hypostase of the Son I adore, the image of it I honor!

There is obviously a difference in here!

And if you ADORE the hypostatical image then you are fallen as Constantine V said either in monophysitism or Nestorianism.

Nah. I hold that the icon and its prototype are hypostatically one. If you read St. Theodore you will see that he takes the language of the Church's Trinitarian doctrine - transposes the elements of unity and distinction - and then applies it to icons. In other words, in the doctrine of the Trinity the Church teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct hypostatically and one in essence; while the opposite is true with icons, for the icon and its prototype are one hypostatically, but distinct in essence.

Again you are very confused. I have no where argued that an icon and its prototype are one in nature or essence; instead, I have said that they are one through hypostatic relation, and as a consequence of this hypostatic likeness the icon is both a vessel containing, and a vehicle for, the energies of God and the saint depicted in the sacred image.

No, I hold to the teaching of St. John and St. Theodore, and of the Byzantine Church; while you are advocating a form of iconoclasm. You have my prayers.

I agree. Well said.

No, you never said that icons represent nature. But by emphasising the divine grace abiding in them as something particular to them compared to other objects, you sounded as if there is particular to icons because of their relation to prototype some special divine presence.
What applies to grace coming through icons applies also to other objects. Kissing the gospel, the cross conveys grace. And they are not images!

Iconography is an art, it was secular art adopted by the church to express its own life in figures.
The same teqnique used to depict a king, servant a sinner etc is used to depict Christ.

Mystification of icons as if representing otherwordly and spiritual realities through colores etc is simply said russian romantic theology of late byzantine period.