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

That's not what the Seventh Ecumenical Council says, nor John Damascus, nor Theodore Studites.

Apotheoun,

"The Icon, Image of the Invisible" Egon Sendler. p.44-45

Prototype and Presence

On the basis of the preceding explanation, St Theodore was able to provide the answer to the final question dealing with the essence of the icon: In what way is the prototype present in the icon?

Thus the conception of St Theodore differed from that of St John of Damascus who said that "it s as though the icon is filled with energy and grace"

The governing principle of St Theodore's theology was, in contrast to the above, the personalism of patristic theology. Personalism could not accept an energy as a mode of personal presence since an energy, according to the orthodox position, always belonged to nature and not to a person.


Without despising matter, St Theodore accented the mode of hypostatic presence in the icon. For him the icon did not belong to the sacramental realm.


The icon allowed the participation in Christ by its relation to the Hypostasis of Christ, and this participation is of an intentional nature.

Thus the conce

I think that the author of the book you have quoted misunderstands the meaning of the term "energy," because energy is personal (enhypostatic), as St. Gregory Palamas affirmed many times in his writings. Moreover, divinity speaks to energy, and so when St. Theodore affirms that divinity is present in icons it follows that he is affirming that divine energy is present in icons. So the author of the text you have quotes has made a fundamental error on the meaning of energy which has colors his views of St. Theodore's theology.

A person is present to us through his energies, for that is how we come to know who he is, and this is true with the icons, so I cannot agree with you (your professor or the above author) on the nature of the divine energy. To be honest, throughout our conversation you have appeared to confuse essence, energy, and person, and that is why I think you have a deficient understanding of icons.

By the way, the "mode of hypostatic presence" is through energy, which is what manifests a person to others.

I found the following quotation from Saint John of Kronstadt in an article written by a Greek Orthodox priest: "God rests in the saints, and even in their names and their images. It is only necessary to use their images with faith, and they will do miracles."

Clearly, both St. John Kronstadt and the Greek Orthodox priest who quoted him believe that God is present in icons, and He certainly cannot be present in an icon essentially, because the image and its prototype are hetero-essential. How can God be present to us? I would answer that question by saying that He can be present only in the way that the Fathers of the East ever speak of Him being present to creation, i.e., through His energies, which personally (enhypostatically) manifest Him to us. It is because icons are filled with God's energy and power that that they can become wonderworking images. That is how God works through icons, by using them as vehicle of his grace and energy.

The following was written by Fr. Egon Sendler as an introduction to Maria Giovanna Muzj's book entitled Transfiguration: Introduction to the Contemplation of Icons:

"The icon is thus a reflection of the Incarnation; it represents a presence. The reality of the prototype is present in the reality of the image. Between these two realities is the link which constitutes the likeness or resemblance, according to one of the greatest theologians of icons, St. Theodore Studite. This likeness is of the spiritual order accessible to the human intelligence. This may appear surprising and perhaps rationalistic, but it is not a question of a purely human intelligence. On that level, the icon would in truth be nothing but a simple object of art. The likeness in question, therefore, is not to be understood in purely naturalistic fashion. Rather, it is to be understood as a kind of epiphany which unfolds before the soul enlightened by faith. The icon reaches beyond the mere natural faculties of the human spirit and discloses its total meaning in contemplation."

Clearly Fr. Sendler believes that God is present in icons, and he seems to believe that St. Theodore teaches this doctrine also. Now how can God be present in a sacred object? Only through His personal energies! It is through the divine energy that man meets God, for that is how God manifests Himself in the world as grace.

I think the earlier text you quoted from Fr. Sendler needs to be read in conjunction with the quotation I have provided, because it is clear that he is not denying that God is present in icons as you assert. Quite the contrary, he affirms this truth explicitly in the quotation above, and goes on to say that this notion of presence is also taught by St. Theodore.

In no place I have confused energy, hypostase and essence. On the contrary, if there is confusion to be named, that would be to prescribe energy to hypostase rather then essence, and that is what you do above. Because, while energy is enhypostatic, true, the same like essence is, that would not mean that energy, likewise essence, is hypostatical, since in that case that would mean that we havedifferent energies in God and consequently different essences in Him, since the hypostases which derive them are three different ones and that would mean different dieties, i.e politheism.

Energy therefore is bound to essence and equality of energy means equality of essence. For an icon to have personalised energy of the prototype, as something peculiar, we would have as a conclusion a sacrament where the prototype is manifested in image, which would involve nature as well. Exactly that overexageration, made some iconodules to add pieces of icons into the the holy chalice for communion!!!!


Here again is the quote from Egon Sendlers book, "The Icon, the Image of the Invisible"

p.44

Prototype and Presence

On the basis of the preceding explanation, St. Theodore was able to provide the answer to the final question dealing with the essence of the icon: In what way is the prototype present in the icon? Without being afraid of the emanation theory of a Platonic philosophy, St. Theodore could say the following:

The prototype is not essentially in the image. If it were, the image would be called prototype, as conversely the prototype would be called image.......Rather, the prototype is in the image by the similarity of hypostasis...

He even went so far as to say that Christ and the icon had the same Hypostasis.

p.46 Thus the conception of St. Theodore differed from that of St. John of Damascus who said that "it is as though the icon is filled with energy and grace." This expression is not without ambiguities and was open to the danger of fetishism, but it stated in ametaphorical way that the body of Christ communicated its holiness to the other material objects. The icon would then participate essentially in the body of Christ and thus would be very close to the sacraments. In fact, certain fanatics on the side of the Orthodox considered icons to be superior to the sacraments. These people went so far as to add fragments of paint from the icon to the Holy Gifts in the chalice! This practice has obviously ben condemned by the orthodox church.

continues...

The governing principle of St.Theodore's theology was, in contrast to the above, the personalism of patristic theology. Personalism could not accept an energy as a mode of personal presence since energy, according to the orthodox position, always belonged to a nature and not to a person. A divine energy would therefore sanctify the icon in a natural way. As a consequence, this would imply that even a decayed board could contain a presence. Nonetheless, St. Theodore, like St. Germanus before him, did not hesitate to burn such an icon as a useless piece of wood. There was therefore no energy present but rather the presence of the hypostasis-person, expressed by the characteristic features of the prototype.

Vladimir Lossky "The mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" p.80

Neither are they (the energies) hypostatic beings, comparable to the three Persons. It is not even possible to attribute any particular energy to any of the divine Hypostases exclusively,...

To close it up with Egon Sandler, p.46-47

"Without despising matter, St. Theodore accented the mode of hypostatic presence in the icon. For him the icon did not belong to the sacramental realm. The material substance of the sacraments received its sanctifying force by an instrumental grace. The icon did not give a person a substantial participation in Christ as did the eucharistic bread which is the body of Christ. The icon allowed the participation in Christ by its relation to the hypostasis of Christ, and its participation was of an intentional nature. Thus the icon must be recognised as the image of a definite person and must carry his name. The icon was an intentional, deliberate communion with the person represented.
With St. Theodore the Studite, the theology of the icon reached its perfection. It is surprising that it took more than a century to arrive at a theological statement that was able to give a satisfying answer to iconoclasm."

In one famous church of Ravena, in Italy, the ancient empiral capital after the 5th cuntury, in west, there is one of the most ancient mosaics of emperor and his wife, Ioustinianos and Theodora (this was monophysite and quite known for immoral life). Do their images convey their energies? Are they energetically present in their images?
Becuase if we say that equality or similarity of image with hypostase of prototype brings automatically energetical presence of the prototype in the image, then we are to expect Ioustinianos and Theodora to be energetically present in those mosaical images.

They aren't icons, and you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well, if you think that icons are privilege only of aknowledged saints and is not simply the depicted image of any human then I am gladly sorry about you barking the right tree!

In the iconoclastic controversy the relation of emperor and his image was continually recalled as an analogy of the relation of icon and its prototype.

And here you guys here have always accused the Latins of over analyzing things.

Haha so true. I can't really see its bearing on the quotations from the UGCC catechism that started this thread either.

Not to involve myself in this debate on Ikons, but Empress Theodora is listed as a saint on some Orthodox Calenders (along with her husband Ioustinianos).