(Greek or Russian image).
See images”.
Christian Bible Dictionary
Dr. J. Dominguez
http://bible.com/dictionary/
Source: Christian Bible Dictionary
Image in general. But in Byzantine churches, this term refers to the religious images that are styled in liturgical ceremonies. In a special way it refers to the paintings, more than to the sculptures.
They are still used today in a special way in the Russian Church and in the Balkan Orthodox communities.
(See Orthodoxy 3.8)
Pedro Chico González, Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy, Editorial Bruño, Lima, Peru 2006
Source: Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy
SUMMARY: I. Theological meaning of the icon: 1. Theological position of the two parties under discussion and its concretion in the corresponding synods; 2. The appeal to the tradition of the Church; 3. Conceptions in modern orthodox theology.-II. Trinitarian images in the East.
I. Theological meaning of the icon
Without icons, the ornamentation of an Orthodox Church would be unthinkable. Icons play a fundamental role in Orthodox piety. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church celebrates the feast of Orthodoxy on March 11 precisely as a commemoration of the victory against the deniers of images.
The dispute between both parties (the deniers of the cult of images and the defenders) was fierce. As corresponds to the Byzantine ecclesiological mentality (and also of Rome!) the dispute had its concretion in the following synods: the synod of Hieria 754 against the images, the ecumenical synod of Nicaea 787 (Nicea II), which was approved by the Pope and yet rejected by Carolingian theologians and by the Synod of Frankfurt a. Main of 794 (Pope Hadrian II defended the Nicene decisions against the Frankfurt synod), the Byzantine synod of 815 against Nicaea II. The feast of Orthodoxy was established on March 11, 844.
1. THEOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE PARTIES IN QUESTION AND ITS CONCRECTION IN THE CORRESPONDING YES NODES. The iconoclasts appealed to the OT texts, which forbid images. This was the central argument used by Emperor Leo III: the creature must not be worshiped in place of the creator. By means of the affirmation that God is not circumscribable (aperígraphos) the iconoclasts try to accuse the defenders of the images of all the possible Christological heresies, which had already been condemned: with the images or the divinity that is uncircumscribable is circumscribed or the two natures are mixed in Christ and this is monophysitism. If you make an image of Christ, you can only paint the human nature of Christ; thus the one Christ is divided and this is Nestorianism. The image has to be homoousios to the prototype (platonic way of thinking!). The only image of Christ is the Eucharist, in which Christ himself is given to us.
The anathematisms of the synod of Hieria (754) underline the Christological perspective, which in his opinion would not be saved by the defenders of images. It is noteworthy that this synod emphasizes that no other faith can be formulated, as the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus had affirmed.
As defenders of the images must be enumerated: in relation to the first period of iconoclasm: German of Constantinople, Georgios of Cyprus and, above all, John Damascene; in relation to the second period: Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople and Theodore, abbot of the Stoudion monastery (Constantinople). As a central argument in all the defenders of images is the reference to the incarnation. By reason of the incarnation, images are justified; a rejection of them supposes denying the reality and the truth of the incarnation. Not God but Christ can be represented (perigraptos). J. Damasceno writes: “In the past, God has never been represented in image, since He is incorporeal and without figure. But since God has now lived in the flesh and has lived among men, we represent what is visible in God. I do not venerate matter but the creator of matter, who has become matter for me… I will not stop venerating the matter through which salvation has come to me. But I do not venerate it as God – how would God be that which, not being, has received existence? -, although the body of God (Jesus Christ) is God, having come into being by hypostatic union…” “I do not venerate the matter as God, but insofar as it is filled with divine energy and grace.
J. Damasceno has provided clarity on the relationship between the image and the prototype. For this he analyzes the concept of similarity: the Son is the image of the Father, this is the most perfect case; in God there are exemplary images of everything that He creates or can create; visible things are images of invisible things as the Ps says. Dionisio. The less perfect case of images are icons. Without the concept of analogy, it is not possible to understand what icons are. Damascene, on the other hand, emphasizes the distinction between the adoration that is due to God (latreía) and the veneration that is given to icons, which he calls timé. A fundamental aspect of all the defenders of icons is to underline the relational nature of the veneration of icons: the veneration given to them is relational, that is, it refers to the prototype.
In J. Damasceno there is the affirmation that the icon is the bearer of divine grace. This statement is not found eg in Theodore Abbot of Stoudion (Thümmel). Schónborn indicates that the Damascene is the one that affirms the most among the iconodules “a kind of sanctity of the icon, which puts it in relation to the sacraments”. The danger would lie, in his opinion, in the following: “one ends up not being interested in what constitutes the icon as an icon (being someone’s image) in order to seek nothing but a contact with the grace of the icon”.
Doctrine of the horos of the Nicene Council II (787). First of all, it must be emphasized that the horos or definition is situated in the theological genre of the confession of faith. It is indicated in the first place that this definition of the Church is in line with the tradition of the Church itself: “we keep without innovating all the ecclesiastical traditions, which have been entrusted to us in writing or without being written. One of these traditions is the making of painted images.” The fundamental argument is Tradition, to which the iconoclasts had appealed. The heart of the debate on icons is, according to the horos, Christology: “Since the images are in accordance with evangelical preaching, they are useful to make the incarnation, real and not fictitious, of the Word of God more credible.” The gospel and the icons “return to each other.” The horos distinguishes between “true worship (latreía), which according to our faith is only suitable for God” and the veneration of the cross, the gospels and icons (proskynesis). A statement by S. Basilio is cited as justification: the honor given to an image goes back to the original. That is why the council concludes: “who therefore venerates an image, venerates in it the hypostasis of the one who is represented in it”. That is, the person represented is venerated in the icon. The expression may seem like a vanity. “This seemingly simple phrase neatly resolves the Christological aporias of the iconoclasts and it is all the more surprising to find it in the horos, given that it does not appear anywhere else in the conciliar debates with this clarity.”
What was the basis for the rejection of the teaching of the Nicene Council II by the Libri Carolini and the Synod of Frankfurt? First of all, the Libri Carolini appeal to Scripture and find no justification there for the Byzantine conception of venerating icons.
The icons are qualitatively different from the sacrament of the Altar (II, 27), from the relics (III, 24). Its formulation is: “imagines in ornamentis ecclesiarum et memoria rerum gestarum habentes et solum Deum adorantes et ejus sanctis opportunam venerationem exhibitentes nec cum illis (iconoclasts) frangimus nec cum istis (iconodules) adoramus” (VI, 9). It should be noted that in the Latin translation of the Nicene text the difference between proskynesis and latreía is lost. Does the misunderstanding lie here? It is important that the Carolingian theologians have no understanding for the central affirmation of Greek theology and reject “quod imaginis honor in primam formam transit” (III, 16), affirmation of Nicene II. These books play a decisive role in the Frankfurt synod, but are not cited by the synod. The Synod of Frankfuré considers it a Nicene doctrine that the same honor and adoration is due to the images of the saints as to the Holy Trinity, and it condemns such a doctrine. But Pope Hadrian defended the Nicene position. He justifies Nicene decisions with scriptural references. He is keen to show that the Greek position is justified by the tradition of the Church. For this he offers quotes from Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen and J. Chrysostom.
At the synod of Constantinople in 815 the iconoclastic position was again reaffirmed. In its boros it is stated: “Imitating the ancient heresies, those who venerate images have fostered the foolishness of previous times, either that they want to circumscribe with the image who is uncircumscribable, or that they separate human nature from divinity. They correct one evil with another… We keep the decrees (of the synod of 754) and we determine that making images does not serve, without considering them as idolatrous things. In the field of evil there are also degrees”. The text is truly restrained and it is at least recognized that the veneration of icons does not have the meaning of an idolatrous adoration. The defenders of the icons, Theodore, abbot of the Stoudion monastery, and the Constantinopolitan patriarch Nikephoros underline the distinction that must be made between worship of the Trinity and veneration of icons and indicate that the veneration of icons has a relational character insofar as leads to the adoration of Christ represented in the image. A presence of divine force in the icon is for the patriarch a pagan conception (!). The defense of icons – the model icon is always that of Christ – involves the whole Christological problem. By reason of the incarnation he is the Logos, circumscribed, so to speak, to that human nature. (It is the problem of the aperigrafa of Christ, which apparently the iconoclasts underlined, because God is not aperigrapha, this is circumscribable). Text of Nicephorus: “In Christ the human nature is renewed… and although the body assumed by God is entirely divinized, transformed (by the resurrection)…, it does not cease to be a body. Remaining body and in whatever way it may be, it remains circumscribed’. The icon is possible and necessary. Whoever rejects the iconic representation of Christ denies the incarnation.
The Byzantines went to Aachen for help against the iconoclasts (824). The Synod of Paris in 825 gave a more positive assessment of the Council of…