by Milica Jaksic

  In the previous issue of Istocnik, the article To the Glory of God: the Icon in some small measure began to impart some of the theology of the icon. It dealt with the nature of the icon and to some extant the justification and purpose for the existence of iconography. There was an unfortunate misprint and the last quote in the article should have read: St John of Damascus stated: "I have seen the human image of God and my soul is saved!" This is certainly a profound statement and warrants further examination. It clearly affirms that the doctrine relating to the image is not separate but follows naturally from the doctrine of salvation. Divine dispensation is therefore organically connected with the image.

  Volumes have been written on this subject and as with everything else there is a significant history relevant to the struggle for the image and the dogma of the Incarnation. It was during the Iconoclastic and post Iconoclastics Periods that the arguments for and against the image were made and the Orthodox teachings concerning the Person of Christ, simultaneously God and man were clearly articulated. As Ouspensky observes "The icon, which during this whole era was incorporated into all of christological theology, witnessed above all to the reality of the Incarnation. The Church asserted the teaching concerning the icon, both through word and image."

  It was at the end of this period that a controversial Patriarch Photius embarked on a new struggle for thus Church doctrine, while continuing to oppose the persistent heresies of iconoclasm. Whereas the period of the Ecumenical Councils was primarily christological this Period examined the truths associated with the mystery of Pentecost: the Holy Spirit, grace, and the nature of the Church. St. Photius is credited with the ultimate defeat of iconoclasm, but he is also significant because he saw in the icon an analogy with Holy Scripture. "The one who refuses it has already refused instruction by the Holy Scriptures. To venerate icons means to understand Holy Scriptures. To venerate icons means to understand Holy Scripture correctly, and vice versa".

  The Ecumenical Council of 843, referred to as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, took place prior to the Patriarchy of St. Photius. The council of 869-870, called the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Rome, is not officially recognized by the Orthodox Church because this council openly condemned Photius. According to Leonid Ouspensky, however, the council of 869-870, during which the Church of Rome confirmed the council of 843, was essentially Orthodox in theory and its third canon, which deals with sacred art, is worthy of consideration. The following is the text of the canon:

"We ordain that the holy icon of our Lord be venerated in the same way as the book of the Gospels. Indeed, just as all receive salvation through the syllables contained in it, so do all, both learned and ignorant, draw profit from what the colours of the icons possess. For that which word announce through syllables, the colours in painting show. If one does not venerate the icon of Christ the Saviour, let him not see His face at the Second Coming. In the same manner, we venerate and bring homage to the icon of His all-pure Mother, to those of the holy angels, painted as they are described in the words of Holy Scripture, and furthermore to those of all the saints. Let those who do not do this be anathema."

  Concerning this canon I will quote Ouspensky again, as I could not write it any better: "...this canon represents a brief recapitulation of the main principles of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (843)". But two details should be noted. First, the council states that the icon is useful to the learned and the ignorant - that its importance is therefore the same for all members of the Church, regardless of their cultural level... Canon 3 is expressed forcefully: "The one who venerates the icon, venerates the hypostasis of the one it represents". But here the truth is expressed in a more concrete, a more imperative form: the general anti-iconoclast tenor of the sentence thus acquires a clearly esthalogical dimension. In this, it also corresponds to the decision of the Seventh Council which emphasized the eschatological aspect of the icon, though less emphatically, through the prophecy of Zephaniah (3:14-15). The vision of Christ at His Second Coming presupposes a confession of His first coming and the veneration of the image of His person that points to it. The reverse is also true: the veneration of the image is a pledge, a condition for the vision of Christ in the glory of His Second Coming. In other words, "icons will therefore be in a certain sense the beginning of the vision of God" (Vladimir Lossky), a beginning of the vision face-to-face. Here we recall the second troparion of the fourth ode of the canon of the Icon of the Holy Face: "In former times, Moses, having asked to see God, was able to contemplate God only obscurely, seeing His back; but the new Israel now sees You, our Deliverer, clearly face to face" The icon not only teaches us things about God; it makes God Himself known to us. In the icon of Christ, we contemplate His divine Person in the glory with which He will return, that is, in His glorified, transfigured face.

  On icons, the third canon of the council concludes, we also represent the Mother of God, the angels and all the saints. This is because, in the eyes of the council, the image of a saint and above all of the Mother of God represents, like the image of Christ, a visible prefiguration of the future: of the eschatalogical Kingdom of God, a manifestation of His glory in man. "have given to them the glory which you have given me" (Jn. 17:22). "But we know that at this revelation we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is" (1 Jn. 3:21).

  It is important to note here the "glory" and the "transfigured face" that Ouspensky draws our attention to. We should understand that the words of Christ, "he who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9), were addressed only to those who, while looking at Jesus the man, simultaneously contemplated His divinity.

Symeon the New Theologian puts it thus:

"Indeed, if we were to conceive this vision as it relates to the body, then those who crucified Him and spat upon Him would also have seen the Father; thus, there would be no difference or preference between believers and unbelievers, since all have equally reached, and, evidently will reach the desired beatitude..."

  Vladimir Lossky writes of the transfigured state:

"The "historical Christ", "Jesus of Nazareth", as He appears to the eyes of alien witnesses; this image of Christ, external to the Church, is always surpassed in the fullness of the revelation given to the true witnesses, to the sons of the Church, enlightened by the Holy Spirit. The cult of the humanity of Christ is foreign to eastern tradition; or, rather, this deified humanity always assumes for the Orthodox Christian that same glorious form under which it appeared to the disciples on Mount Tabor: the humanity of the Son, manifesting forth that deity which is common to the Father and the Spirit."

  And, finally, Ouspensky writes:

"The contemplation of the Church is different from the secular vision precisely by the fact that, in the visible, the Church contemplates the invisible; and in the temporal, the eternal, which is revealed to us in worship. Like worship itself, the icon is a revelation of eternity in time. This is why in sacred art the naturalistic portrait of a person can only be a historical document: in no way can it reflect the liturgical image, the icon."

  If it is God's will, I hope to elaborate further on the uniqueness of iconography as a liturgical image, but for now let us once again consider the words of St. John of Damascus and that the salvation may be achieved by contemplating the Holy Image. This premise that the icon as the Holy Image may be placed on a level with the Holy Scriptures and with the Cross as one of the forms of revelation and knowledge of God, and may contribute to salvation is indeed firmly rooted in Orthodox dogma. The following is the text of the Kontakion of the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy:

"The indefinable word of the Father made Himself definable, having taken flesh of Thee, O Mother of God, and having refashioned the soiled image to its former estate, has suffused it with Divine beauty. But confessing salvation we show it forth in deed and word."

  There is much to consider in these few words, more than I have time or space for in this article. Briefly, relevant to the question of salvation I will quote that Ouspensky writes about this Kontakion, keeping in mind that there is more being expressed in it than what we are currently addressing:

"The first part of the Kontakion discloses the connection between the icon and Christological dogma, the basing of the icon on the Divine Incarnation. The subsequent part discloses the meaning of the Divine Incarnation, the fulfillment of God's design concerning man, and consequently concerning the world. Essentially, both these parts of the Kontakion are a reiteration of the patristic formula: "God became man in order that man should become god." The last part of the Kontakion gives man's answer to God, our profession of the saving truth of the Divine Incarnation, the acceptance by man of the Divine dispensation and his participation therein. By the last words of the Kontakion the Church shows in what our participation is expressed, and in what consists the fulfillment of our salvation."