The first manifestations of Christian iconography had a didactic function; but, as they became part of ritual worship, images became an aesthetic expression of the faith professed and lived by the universal Church. The iconoclastic crisis in the Christian East gave rise to a profound theological debate about the legitimacy, function and meaning of images. These struggles deepened reflection on the possibilities of the image to express, in its perishable form, categories as diverse as nature and grace, the human and the divine, immanence and transcendence. The disagreements degenerated into a conflict between the supporters and the detractors of iconographic manifestations.
Faced with the difficulty of pointing to one concrete event as the cause of the crisis, historians usually refer to the decision of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian to issue, in the year 730, an edict prohibiting every kind of image except the sign of the cross. His son and successor, Constantine V Copronymus, not only continued the persecutions, but even dared to convene a synod at Hiereia which prohibited iconographic worship, condemned its principal defenders and declared that images were idols and their worshippers true idolaters.
Among the defenders, the theologian St. John Damascene stands out. He organized a series of arguments drawn from the patristic tradition in order to build a theory about the theological significance of images. In his three discourses De imaginibus, he refutes the arguments both of the Jews and of the Christian iconoclasts: “For if the Son of God, taking the condition of a servant, clothed himself in human form and, being made like men, appeared in bearing as a man, why should we not be able to represent his image?” (De imaginibus I).
The Church, which officially had remained on the sidelines of the controversy, joined the voices of those who fought for the legitimacy of iconographic worship. Against those who denied its possibility and fittingness, the Second Council of Nicaea (the Seventh Ecumenical Council) defined “with all exactness and care that, in a manner similar to the image of the precious and life-giving cross, the sacred and holy images are to be set forth, […] of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of God, of the precious angels and of all holy and venerable men” (Session VII).
From the theological point of view, it is significant that iconoclasm affects, at the same time, icons, monks, the cult of the saints, the mystery of Christ and the divine motherhood of Mary. For this reason, the triumph of the icon would represent the success of dogmatic grounding and of the whole fullness of revealed truth, goodness and beauty. Against this decisive background, it is logical to recognize that the first fruit of the council is the approval of the cult of images and the condemnation of the iconoclasm that denies its legitimacy. Nevertheless, despite the declarations, the iconoclasts, like the phoenix, still rose again from their ashes.
After the definitions and anathemas of the council, the enemies of iconographic worship found a new pretext to return to the attack against images and their veneration. This time they relied on the disastrous campaigns against the Turks and against the Bulgarians, which slowly undermined the prestige of the emperor. The discredit reached such a point that, in the year 813, Michael I Rangabe was replaced by Leo V the Armenian. The new emperor proclaimed himself opposed to images and in favor of following the iconoclastic emperors most renowned for their victories. He deposed Patriarch Nicephorus and developed a whole offensive against images.
In the same year, a conciliabulum met in Hagia Sophia of Constantinople to renew the teachings of Hiereia and to criticize the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea. The campaigns and persecutions against images, relics and their defenders began again. They were especially fierce against the monks of the monastery of Stoudios, whose abbot, Theodore, even from exile, continued to defend the orthodoxy of iconographic worship with his letters and writings.
With the death of Emperor Theophilus, his wife assumed the regency of their son Michael III. The empress Theodora removed Patriarch Theodore Kassiteras of Constantinople and chose Methodius for the office; he deposed all iconoclastic bishops and abbots and brought peace to the whole territory. Theodora and Patriarch Methodius decided to be reconciled with Rome and to restore the cult of images. This second phase of iconoclasm lasted until the year 843, when orthodoxy was definitively re-established.
The event had the incomparable setting of Constantinople’s most emblematic church. After a night vigil in the church of St. Mary of Blachernae, a procession was organized to the basilica of Hagia Sophia, where the holy offices were celebrated with great solemnity in memory of the sacred images. The following year, on the first Sunday of Lent, the anniversary of the restoration of the images, the great feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was instituted for the whole Christian East. It is a feast of great solemnity which the Byzantine Church continues to celebrate every year on the first Sunday of Lent.
To confirm this tradition, under the joint reign of Michael III and Basil I, the apse of the basilica of Hagia Sophia was decorated with the image of the Virgin with the Child (Theotokos) and the four great patriarchs who bore witness to the struggle against the iconoclasts: Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus and Methodius — a full symbol of orthodoxy and of the definitive triumph of iconographic worship.
The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), the Eighth Ecumenical Council, against Photius and his followers, later dealt with the subject of iconographic worship. In its declarations it proclaims the whole iconoclastic movement heretical because it affects the entire mystery of salvation: “If anyone, therefore, does not venerate the image of Christ the Savior, let him not see his form at his second coming. Likewise we also honor and venerate the image of his Immaculate Mother, and the images of the holy angels, just as Scripture characterizes them in its oracles, and also those of all the saints. Those who do not think thus, let them be anathema” (Canon 3).
Once the iconoclastic struggles had ended, the cult of images remained fully justified in the tradition and life of the Church. From then on, the icon has been considered a sacred art which, through the Fathers of the Church, has become part of the Eastern tradition of the Church. In the West too, on the same principles, although with a lesser degree of sacrality, iconographic tradition and dogma have been united: in this regard it is enough to recall the influence of the Council of Chalcedon on the configuration of Christ in Majesty, which gave rise to the medieval Pantocrator, and from this to the modern image of the Sacred Heart.
Conciliar decisions have always cooperated in the artistic projection of Christian images proposed for popular devotion. Artistic fruitfulness is one of the expressions most in harmony with the act of faith. Christian artists have sought and chosen aesthetic formulas that contain in themselves the seal of fidelity to the Gospel. Tradition has considered the work of art as pure and disinterested praise of supreme Beauty, which is praised and exalted in itself without the need of any other external praise.
But when artistic creativity is placed at the service of this praise, personal inspiration must be joined to the demands of the faith that the Church proclaims, lives and confesses. The sense of faith (“sensus fidei”) will inspire the most suitable forms for expressing salvation within a community of believers. Christian artists must be aware that only faith, and what it means to feel oneself saved in Christ, will be capable of creating an art worthy of being accepted by the Church. If the image is oriented toward the building up of the religious life of believers, it is evident that the Church must present the requirements for the approval of a work destined for worship.
The form of infinite beauty is one alone, but, in its aesthetic splendor, it shines forth in all things as the perfect archetype of each one of them. And this divine archetype is what makes its truth and goodness shine in the language of artistic beauty. Iconography participates in this symbolic beauty, because “sensible existing reality bears within itself everything needed to teach the deepest mysteries of divine creation” (Evdokimov). One of the most beautiful comparisons of this aesthetic analogy is offered to us by Von Balthasar when he speaks of the supreme rule for the Christian artist.
Moved by admiration for art, he establishes a parallel between the work of the artist and that of the confessor. The confessor has the mission of going deeper from the darkness of sin toward a new world of grace and light. Likewise, the artist who gives himself fully to his charismatic mission can open the darkness that hides grace and show in the image the authentic beauty that bears the promise of salvation.
Courtesy of Father Jesús Casás Otero for apologeticacatolica.org
Author: Father Jesús Casás Otero
