1

Cinstirea icoanelor o component fundamental a cultului i credinei ortodoxe, ceea ce

justific actualitatea nvturilor Sinodiconului Ortodoxiei, care proclam: Celor ce vestesc
cuvintele Evangheliei prin litere, iar faptele ei prin icoane, venic s le fie memoria!.

Iconoclasmul i mpraii iconoclati
Iconoclasm= curent eretic, format din cuvintele ikon = chip i maho = a distruge,
distrugerea icoanelor.
1

Erezia a fost n general iniiat i susinut de mprai, beneficiind de sprijinul lor politic
i militar. De aceea erezia iconoclast s-a deosebit de celelalte erezii prin cruzimea cu care a fost
impus.
Perioada iconoclast a fost lung ea durnd aproape un secol. A nceput odat cu dinastia
isaurian i terminndu-se n 843 cnd la conducerea imperiului se aflau reprezentani ai
dinastiei de Amorium.
Iconoclasmul s-a desfurat n dou faze:
a) prima faz a fost deschis de Leon al III-lea Isaurul n 726 i se ncheie n timpul
mprtesei Irina si al fiului ei, Constantin al VI- lea, odat cu al VII-lea sinod ecumenic de la
Niceea.
b) a doua faz ncepe n 813 odat cu urcarea pe tron a lui Leon al V- lea Armeanul i se
termin n 843, cnd la domnie se afla mpratul Mihail al III- lea cu mama sa, Theodora.
Prima faz a iconoclasmului izbucnete atunci cnd n timpul lui Leon al III-lea a avut
loc o erupie vulcanic, fapt ce duce la producerea unui mare cutremur ntre insulele Therasia i
Thera. Acest fenomen l determin pe mprat s cread c e o pedeaps a lui Dumnezeu pentru
nchinarea la icoane. mpratul Leon al III-lea convoac o adunare la palat format din civili
pentru a alctui un edict mpotriva icoanelor.
Reacia Bisericii Ortodoxe mpotriva ereziei iconoclaste, n prima sa faz, a fost prompt
i puternic, att n Rsritul, ct i n Apusul cretin. Chiar nainte ca mpratul Leon III s ia
primele msuri iconoclaste, patriarhul Gherman al Constantinopolului (715-730) a condamnat
prin cteva epistole dogmatice, ideile eretice ale unor episcopi din Asia Mic.
Imediat dup publicarea edictului imperial din 726, Sf. Ioan Damaschin (675-749),
monah la mnstirea Sf. Sava din Palestina, a compus Cele trei tratate mpotriva celor ce atac
sfintele icoane, scriere fundamental pentru teologia icoanelor, n care autorul adun numeroase
mrturii patristice n favoarea cultului icoanelor, anterioare sec. VIII. Mai trziu, n 763 i 767,
patriarhii Cosma I al Alexandriei, Teodor I al Antiohiei i Teodor I al Ierusalimului arunc
anatema asupra ereticilor iconoclati. n Apus, iconoclasmul este ferm condamnat, att prin
epistolele papilor Grigorie II, Grigorie III i Pavel I, ct i n cadrul unor sinoade locale, precum
cele de la Roma (731 i 769) i Gentilly (Frana, 767).
Odat cu izbucnirea iconoclasmului mpratul Leon al III-lea va scoate i monogramele
cretine de pe monezile de aur i argint, fiind nlocuite pe ambele pri cu busturi de mprai.
2

Dup moartea lui Leon al III- lea pe tronul imperial urc fiul acestuia Constantin al V-lea
care va avea o activitate iconoclast foarte activ.

1
Popescu Emilian, prof. Dr., Curs de Bizan, pag 129
2
Andre Grabar, Iconoclasmul bizantin, editura Meridiane, Bucureti, 1991, pag 226.
2

De bun seam a fost remarcat aceast intervenie repetat a femeilor din casa domnitoare n
favoarea icoanelor. Aa cum o arat, deopotriv mozaicurile de la Sfntul Dimitrie, cu reprezentrile lui
de mame i copii lng sfini, sau episodul femeilor care, n 726
- au masacrat pe funcionarul nsrcinat de ctre Leon al III- lea pentru a distruge chipul lui Hristos de pe
Poarta principal, ori interveniile celor dou mprtese n favoarea cultului imaginilor, jumtatea
feminin a populaiei bizantine a inut la cultul icoanelor cu credin i fericire. Este evident c aceste
femei au salutat cu nverunare sfritul interdiciilor oficiale care mpiedicaser nchinarea i cinstirea
icoanelor.
3


c cuvntul i imaginea sunt, n mod regular, forme raional-afective de transmitere a unei
persoane ctre o alta, pe fundamentul c toi suntem creai dup chipul lui Dumnezeu [katV eivko,na
qeou/ Fac. 1, 27, cf. LXX] pentru ca s fim n relaie vie, continu cu El i ntre noi.
Pentru c suntem dup chipul/icoana lui Dumnezeu cel viu tocmai de aceea suntem
dinamici i comunicativi, n relaie unii cu alii prin intermediul cuvintelor i a gesturilor noastre.
Teologia icoanelor e profund dogmatic i tradiional. n definiia dogmatic a
Sinodului 7 Ecumenic cinstirea icoanei Domnului e mrturisit ca predanie nescris4 a Bisericii,
pentru c figurarea zugrvirii n icoaneste n acord cu relatarea propovduirii Evangheliei i este
folositoare spre ncredinarea adevratei, i nu dup nchipuire,
Sfini i Dascli ai Bisericii, care ne introduc n relaia profund, interioar, dintre
cuvnt i icoan n spiritualitatea ortodox. Pentru c, prin cuvnt, explicm i aprofundm
semnificaiile teologice ale icoanei iar icoana ne devine o prezen cotidian pentru


3
Idem 2, pag. 356-357
3

noi, tocmai pentru c ne e dor s privim ctre ea i s ne rugm n faa ei i, prin calea
deschis minii i inimii noastre de ctre ea, s comunicm cu Domnul, cu Maica Sa, cu
Sfinii Si Icoana e o prezen deschis care nu suport n definiia ei nrmarea6.
Cuvntul credinei e tot o prezen deschis, foarte profund, aidoma icoanei, care ne
aduce nelegerea voii lui Dumnezeu i a relaiei Lui cu noi..

nainte de a ncepe o abordare dogmatic i teologic, este necesar o delimitare terminologic
din care s reias trsturile eseniale cu privire la obiectul studiului: icoana.
Se remarc astfel, o diversitate de idei referitoare la terminologia cuvntului icoan, dar
i la cuprinsul teologic al acestui cuvnt.
Termenul folosit de limbajul patristic pentru a desemna ceea ce reprezint traducearea
sa n limba romn prin termenul icoan, este cel de . nelesul acestui termen este de
chip, reprezentare. Alturarea termenului la obiect poart cu sine o nvtur dogmatic,
concretizat ntr-o teologie a chipului
4
. ns acest aspect necesit o analiz amanunit care
ns nu face parte din perspectiva studiului de fa.
majoritatea Sfinilor Prini subliniind rolul pedagogic al icoanei, ca modalitate de
nvare pentru cei netiutori, a tainelor mntuitoare i rscumprtoare ale lucrrii lui Hristos
pe pmnt.
Privit n sensul cel mai restrns al cuvntului, icoana este,, reprezentarea pictural a
unui personaj sfnt sau a unei scene sfinte, fcut de obicei pe o bucat de lemn, pnz, metal,
hrtie sau sticl, ori chiar pe zidul Bisericii
5

Dincolo de acest aspect concret care reliefeaz materialul sau locul icoanei, icoana este
o teologie. Ea,, indic coborrea lui Dumnezeu n lume i participarea omului la viaa divin
6

.Rolul icoanelor, n viziunea Sf.Ioan Damaschin, este de a ne ridica de la materialitatea naturii,
la contemplarea celor spirituale: "prin icoane vizibile suntem condui la contemplarea a ceea ce
este divin i spiritual"
7


4
Vezi Vladimir Lossky, Dup chipul i asemnarea lui Dumnezeu, Ed.Humanitas, Bucureti, 1998.
5
Pr.Prof.Ene Branite, Teologia icoanelor,S.T., 1952,p. 178
6
Leonid Uspensky,Teologia icoanei, Ed.Anastasia, Bucureti, 1994, p.115
7
Sf.Ioan Damaschin,Cultul Sfintelor icoane:cele trei tratate contra iconoclatilor, EIBMBOR,Bucureti, 1998,p. 46
4

Printele Stniloae subliniaz n mod deosebit caracterul teologic al icoanei, n care el
vede o reprezentare a celor ce sunt,,locauri pnevmatizate ale lui Hristos, a Crui umanitate e
desvrit pnevmatizat prin Duhul Sfnt, unit prin fiin cu ipostasul acestei umaniti.
8

Prin aceast formulare, printele Stniloae ofer i o lmurire aspectului dogmatic al
posibilitii icoanei. Acesta i are fundamentul n ntruparea Fiului lui Dumnezeu, care s-a fcut
om, a purtat chip omenesc cu care s-a urcat ntru slav, de-a dreapta Tatlui. Dumnezeirea nu
poate fi reprezentat n icoan, pentru c este incognoscibil i nevzut. i totodat, nici nu
putem admite existena unei Sofii care s permit descriptabilitatea dumnezeirii, aa cum afirma
teologul Serghei Bulgakov
9
.
Posibilitatea iconografiei(= scrierea icoanei
10
) are temei n desvrirea
revelaiei divine prin Iisus Hristos.,,Icoana nu este o imagine a naturii divine; ea este imaginea
unei Persoane divine ntrupate, care transmite trsturile Fiului lui Dumnezeu venit n trup,
devenit vizibil i, prin urmare, reprezentabil cu mijloace omeneti.
11
Icoana este astfel, o
consecin a ntruprii, dup cum Hristos este "chipul lui Dumnezeu cel nevzut"
(Col. 1, 15),ea fcnd parte din nsi revelaia divin ca form de descoperire a lui Dumnezeu.

8
Pr.Dumitru Stniloae,Spiritualitate i comuniune n Liturghia Ortodox, EIBMBOR,Bucureti, 2004, p.91
9
Vezi studiu critic al pr.Nikolai Ozolin n Icoana i cinstirea sfintelor icoane, Ed.Anastasia, 2000.
10
Traducerea literal a cuvntului grec (iconografie) este "scrierea de imagini". De aceea, unii cretini
ortodoci insist s precizeze c se "scriu", nu se "picteaz". Acest lucru este explicat prin compararea icoanelor cu
Sfnta Scriptur n sensul c, precum Biblia nu e doar o relatare istoric, icoanele nu sunt simple compoziii
artistice, ci mrturii ale adevrului cuprins n Scriptur. Departe de a fi produse ale imaginaiei iconografului,
icoanele sunt mai degrabo form de transcriere a Bibliei.De asemenea, cei care pledeaz pentru traducerea
termenului de iconografie ca "scriere" a icoanelor au mai insistat asupra faptului c de-a lungul secolelor (att n
Biserica primar, n timpul persecutrii cretinilor de ctre autoritile pgne ct i mai recent, oriunde credinciii
ortodoci au fost supui unor autoriti necretine), icoanele au fost i au rmas crile celor ce nu tiu s citeasc, iar
printr-o reprezentare adesea simplificat ele trimit la i confirm credina de baz a Bisericii: ntruparea. Faptul c
Dumnezeu a devenit om, faptul c a purtat El nsui i a sfinit natura uman i materia n general nseamn c El
poate fi reprezentat cu ajutorul materiei.Dei explicarea scopului i naturii icoanelor este adevrat i conform cu
Tradiia Bisericii, insistena asupra faptului c icoanele sunt "scrise" mai degrab dect pictate este oarecum
problematic din punct de vedere lingvistic. n limba greac, orice fel de portret pictat sau desenat ia numele de
(graf), iar arta picturii se numete (zografik), astfel c orice desen sau pictur poart numele de
(zografa). Prin urmare, din punct de vedere lingvistic se poate considera c orice pictur - att icoanele
ct i simplele portrete - sunt forme de "scriere". Preferina pentru termenul "scriere" cu privire la iconografie este
astfel lipsit de suport lingvistic, ntruct nu traduce n mod real o specificitate a icoanei n raport cu restul artei
picturii.Limba greac face o distincie ntre (zo+grafa, pictura realist a celor vii) i
(iconografia, cu particularitile sale). Limba romn veche a preluat din greac termenul de "zugrav", folosit pentru
a desemna fie pictorii preocupai de arta laic, fie iconografii, iar "a zugrvi" nsemna n general "a picta", termen ce
s-a extins ulterior la orice fel de pictur, inclusiv la pictura uniform i fr valene artistice a zidurilor caselor.
Limba romn modern a asimilat i termenii de "iconograf" i "iconografie", astfel c permite pstrarea distinciei
din greac, fcnd din "iconografie" o categorie distinct de pictur.
11
Leonid Uspensky, op.cit,.p. 84
5

), arta cretin iese din catacombe i i ncepe perioada de revigorare, chiar de dezvoltare,
nlocuind nsemnele pgne i descoperind alte i alte forme de art, concretizate att n
locaurile de cult, ct i n diversitatea iconografic n care, pe lng reprezentarea n icoan a
lui Hristos i a Maicii Domnului, se adaug i pictarea sfinilor
. Punctul culminant l atinge aceast criz pe la 730, iar la 754, n sinodul de la Hiera,
icoanele sunt interzise avnd ca efect simultan redeclanarea problemei hristologice a unirii
ipostatice
Sfntul Ioan Damaschin chiar specific faptul c,, icoana e sfinit prin numele lui
Dumnezeu i prin numele prietenilor lui Dumnezeu i acesta e motivul pentru care primete
harul lui Dumnezeu.
12

Punnd la ndoial prezena Duhului Sfnt n cel reprezentat n icoan, facem obiecie
posibilitii lucrtoare a Duhului Sfnt care nu se limiteaz la a fi prezent doar n prototip, ci i n
tip:,,Icoanele rspndesc sfinenia n viaa Bisericii pentru c harul Duhului Sfnt nu se limiteaz
la persoanele reprezentate ( prototipurile), ci cuprinde i icoanele lor (tipurile).
13

Sfinirea icoanei se leag n mod direct de cinstirea ei. Prin cinstirea adus unei icoane,
se cinstete de fapt, cel care este reprezentat pe ea. Astfel, omul cade n faa icoanei cu
ndejdea c va primi ajutor. I se adreseaz n mod direct sfntului din icoan. Pomenirea
numelui lui transcende starea materiei,care devine sacralizat prin nsi aceast pomenire.
ed fundatiei a
2005 buc


12
Sf.Ioan Damaschin, op.cit, p.54
13
Stephan Bigam, op.cit,p.69
6


72

76

7





8

79
85 Idol si simbol

Sfntul Ioan Damaschin l comenteaz\ astfel: Dac\ icoana mp\ratului este
mp\ratul, urmeaz\ c\ [i icoana lui Hristos este Hristos Dar dac\ vei spune c\
este nevoie s\ te une[ti cu Dumnezeu numai n chip duhovnicesc, atunci ndep\
rteaz\ toate cele corporale: lumn\rile, t\mia binemirositoare, ns\[i rug\ciunea
f\cut\ cu vocea, dumnezeie[tile Taine chiar, s\vr[ite cu cele materiale,
pinea, vinul, untdelemnul ungerii, semnul crucii, crucea, buretele r\stignirii,
trestia, lancea c\ci toate acestea sunt materie. Dar har dumnezeiesc se d\ celor
materiale din pricina numelor celor picta]i pe icoane. C\ci dup\ cum purpura [i
m\tasea [i haina ]esut\ din ele sunt n ele nsele un lucru comun, dar dac\
mp\ratul se mbrac\ cu ea, se transmite mbr\c\mintei din cinstea ce se cuvine
celui mbr\cat cu ea, tot astfel [i cu cele materiale. Acestea prin ele nsele sunt
nevrednice de nchin\ciune. Dar dac\ cel zugr\vit este plin de har, particip\ [i icoanele
la har n m\sura credin]ei. Apostolii au v\zut pe Domnul cu ochii trupului [i
eu, pentru c\ am fost zidit din suflet [i trup, doresc s\-L v\d [i cu sufletul [i cu
trupul Tu, probabil, pentru c\ e[ti nalt [i imaterial [i ai ajuns dincolo de trup [i
oarecum f\r\ de trup, dispre]uie[ti tot ceea ce se vede. Eu ns\, pentru c\ sunt
mbr\cat cu trup, doresc s\ fiu n chip trupesc n leg\tur\ cu cele sfinte [i s\ le v\d.
Tu, care e[ti nalt, coboar\-te gndului meu smerit ca s\-]i p\strezi n\l]imea17.
17 Sfntul Ioan Damaschin, Cele trei tratate contra iconocla[tilor, traducere de Pr.
Dumitru Fecioru, EIBMBOR, Bucure[ti, 1998, p. 69.
9

Chipul era v\zut inferior prototipului, ceea ce
[i-a nsu[it [i Arie, cnd a abordat problema chipului fa]\ de protochip, adic\
raportul Fiului cu Tat\l n Sfnta Treime.
Sfntul Atanasie cel Mare, mintea cea
Sfntul Vasile este cel care a sus]inut egalitatea ntre Tat\l [i Fiul [i Sfntul
Duh. El, care a dus o via]\ att de curat\, a avut luminarea personal\, ipostatic\ a
Sfntului Duh, [i numai n aceasta se vede Chipul [i Protochipul. Spune Sfntul
Vasile: Cnd se va cur\]i cineva de ru[inea pe care a contractat-o din r\utate [i
va reveni la frumuse]ea fireasc\ [i va reflecta prin cur\]ire, ca ntr-o oglind\
mp\r\teasc\ vechiul chip, numai atunci va putea s\ se apropie de Paraclet.
Acesta ns\ str\lucind, precum str\luce[te soarele naintea ochiului curat, i
va ar\ta acestuia n el nsu[i imaginea Celui nev\zut. n fericita contemplare a
chipului vei vedea frumuse]ea arhetipului44


nu pentru c icoana difer de arhetip n ce privete raiunea invizibilitii i buntii ci ca
s arate c e identic cu prototipul, chiar dac e altceva dect el. Cci nu s-ar salva raiunea
(definiia) icoanei dac n-ar avea claritatea i invariabilitatea n toate. Aadar, cel ce nelege
frumuseea icoanei ajunge la nelegerea arhetipului. Iar cel ce a neles forma lui Hristos i-a
ntiprit n sine efigia ipostasului Tatlui vzndu-L prin Acesta pe Acela, nu ns privind n
reprezentarea iconic nenaterea Tatlui (cci atunci El ar fi ntru totul identic - cu Tatl - nu
altul), ci vznd frumuseea nenscut n cea nscut. Cci aa cum cel ce privete ntr-o
oglind curat imprimarea formei sale n ea are cunotina clar a feei reprezentate iconic n
ea, aa i cel ce cunoate pe Fiul a primit n inim prin cunoaterea Fiului efigia Ipostasului
Tatlui. Fiindc toate cele ale Tatlui se vd n Fiul i toate cele ale Fiului sunt ale Tatlui,
pentru c ntreg Fiul rmne n Tatl i iari El are n Sine pe Tatl ntreg (Ioan 14, 11).
Astfel nct ipostasul Fiului devine un fel de form i de fa pentru (re)cunoaterea Tatlui,
iar ipostasul Tatlui e (re)cunoscut n forma Fiului, dei n Ele rmne proprietatea contemplat
numai n Acestea pentru distincia clar a Ipostasurilor. 60
Cci cu ct mai mult sunt vzui acetia prin ntiprirea lor iconic, cu att i cei ce
privesc la ele isunt ridicai spre amintirea i dorirea prototipurilor lor, le vor aduce srutare i
nchinare de
cinstire, iar nu adoraia adevrat, care potrivit credinei noastre se cuvine numai Naturii
dumnezeieti (a Sfintei Treimi); i n acelai fel ca tipului cinstitei i de-via-fctoarei
Cruci, Sfintelor Evanghelii i celorlalte sfinte aezminte, ntru cinstirea lor se vor face i
aducere de tmie i lumini, precum era obiceiul n mod evlavios la cei din vechime. Cci,
cinstirea icoanei urc la prototip41 i cel ce se nchin la icoan se nchin la ipostasul celui
zugrvit n ea41 Sf. Vasile cel Mare, De Spiritu Sancto XVIII, 45; P.G. 32,149 C. 55
i la tipul fctoarei-de-via Cruci i la icoana preasfintei Nsctoarei de
Dumnezeu i a tuturor Sfinilor toat nchinarea sfinitoare a icoanelor urca prin intermediul
prototipurilor lor la Dumnezeu 53
10

De aceea, cinstirea icoanei trece la prototip. Iar dac
nchinarea trece la prototip, nseamn c nu sunt dou nchinri de cinstire (una la icoan i
alta la prototip), ci una i aceeai, precum unul i acelai este i prototipul nchinat chiar dac
n icoan
Dar la icoana imitativ i la
arhetipul (ei), adic la icoana lui Hristos i la Hristos nsui pentru c este un singur Ipostas,
este i aici o singur nchinare dup identitatea unicului Ipostas, iar nu dup diferena naturilor
39 P.G. 99, 500-505.
Sfntul Teodor Studitul
52
lui Hristos i a icoanei Lui
dac ar zice cineva c
nchinarea icoanei i a prototipului nu e unic nici n cazul identitii naturii nici n cel al
identitii ipostasului, este evident atunci c s-a scindat puterea i s-a mprit slava
prototipului de cea a icoanei
orice icoan artificial (technet) este o asemnare a celui a crui icoan este
i ea poart n ea imprimat prin imitaie efigia arhetipului, dup cum zice mult iscusitul n
cele dumnezeieti Dionisie (Areopagitul): adevrul este n asemnare, arhetipul n icoan,
fiecare n fiecare, afar de diferena de fiin. Astfel nct cel ce se nchin la icoan s-a
nchinat la cel pe care l arat icoana. Cci nu se nchin la substana icoanei, ci la cel zugrvit
pe ea, iar icoana nu este scindat de prototip n ce privete identitatea nchinrii; cci prin
asemnare icoana este identic cu prototipul. Aa zice, deci, i marele Vasile c i icoana
mpratului se numete mprat i nu sunt doi mprai. Cci nici puterea nu se scindeaz nici
slava nu se mparte. Ci aa cum la noi domnete o unic stpnire i putere, aa i doxologia
noastr e unic i nu mai multe. De aceea, cinstirea icoanei trece la prototip. Iar dac
nchinarea trece la prototip, nseamn c nu sunt dou nchinri de cinstire (una la icoan i
alta la prototip), ci una i aceeai, precum unul i acelai este i prototipul nchinat chiar dac
n icoan. 51
Sfntul TEODOR STUDITULEpistola ctre Platon despre venerarea
icoanelor ........................................ 51
IISUS HRISTOS
PROTOTIP AL ICOANEI SALE- tratatele contra iconomahilor -
Traducere de Diac. Ioan I. Ic jr.
Tiprit la Editura Deisis, Mnstirea Ioan Boteztorul, Alba Iulia, 1994




11

9. Name-worshipping and Icons 48-56ON THE NAME OF GOD
Against the Name-worshipping Heresy of Fr. A. Bulatovich and Fr. G.
Louri
Vladimir Moss9. Name-worshipping and Icons ..........................................48
Vladimir Moss, 2007

This same ambiguity, which plagues the writings of Bulatovich, is found in the
following passage: That the Name of the Lord according to Divine power can by no
means be equated with the holy icons is evident from the fact that the holy icons,
according to the definition of the 6th Ecumenical Council (cf. the Greek Rudder) are
not subject to sanctification, but the sanctification for any icon is the inscription of
the Name of the saint that is depicted on it, or of the Lord, or of the Mother of God.
In the same way on each cross it is the inscription on it of the Name Jesus Christ
which serves as its sanctification, making it holy and distinguishing it from the
crosses of the robbers.90
It is not in fact true that it is the inscription of the Name of Jesus Christ on a cross
that makes it holy: the shape of the cross alone, made with reverence by a believer,
has the power to drive away demons. On each cross, teach the name-worshippers,
it is the writing on it of the name Jesus Christ that serves as the sanctification,
makes it holy and distinguishes it from the crosses of thieves.
88 St. Theodore, Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 97 (in Russian). Quoted from Metropolitan Benjamin
(Fedchenko), The Teaching of St. Theodore the Studite on the veneration of the Cross of the Lord and
the Holy Icons (in Russian),
89 Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis, After Death, Katerini: Tertios, 1995, pp. 117-118.
90 Bulatovich, Apology, ch. 3.
49
council in Constantinople at which two Bogomil bishops of the Tiana metropolia,
Clement of Sasima and Leontius of Bealbeat, were condemned, and one of the points
of their indictment was the following: They do not allow people to bow down to a
cross if there is no writing on it: Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Council
recognized that they were thinking and acting against the teaching of the Orthodox
Church and anathematized them.91
In any case, Bulatovichs words are ambiguous. The phrase: that the Name of the
Lord according to Divine power can by no means be equated to the holy icons
would seem to indicate that the Uncreated Name is in question the grace of God,
which is indeed higher than the honourable matter of the icons. But then
Bulatovich goes on to talk about the inscription of the Name, which would seem to
indicate the created name the letters as written in paint on the icon. And this is
confirmed by the reference to the inscription on it of the Name Jesus Christ in
the last sentence.
A third example of almost the identical ambiguity is to be found in the following
words of Fr. Gregory Louri: The Name of God, although it cannot be God
according to its sounds or letters, is God according to the energies (by analogy with
the presence of God in the holy icons; cf. on the sanctification of the icon by the
inscription of the name on it). The name of God is the most primary type of icon. If
the teaching on this by St. Dionysius the Areopagite (especially in his tract On the
Divine Names) and St. Maximus the Confessor (especially in his Mystagogy) had been
12

taken account of, then the task of the Russian name-worshippers in the quarrels of
the years 1913-1918 would probably have been substantially simplified.92
Here there seems to be no doubt that the created name is being talked about. For
only something created could be called the most primary type of icon. But then
why mention St. Dionysius On the Divine Names, which, as Fr. Gregory points out
with great insistence in other places, speaks about the Uncreated names?
However, lest we think that the name-worshippers are always ambiguous in this
context, we shall quote the following honourable exception, from the writings of one
of Fr. Gregorys pupils, Tatiana Senina: We venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
the icons and the relics, and bow down to them because God is present in them
according to the energies, and the saints themselves, from their union with God, are
called gods not by essence, but by grace. But the name is one and the same. But the
Name according to its inner essence is greater than the icon, insofar as it is the
energy of God (this is evident from the fact that the icon is sanctified by the Name),
whereas the inscription of the Name is truly equal to the icon, since in it, as in the
icon, God is present by His energies.93
91 Troitsky, Byl li imiabozhnikom, op. cit., pp. 69-70.
92 Louri, commentary on the Russian translation of Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, A Study of St.
Gregory Palamas, London, 1964, St. Petersburg: Vizantinorossika, 1997, pp. 393-394 (in Russian).
93 Senina, Name-glorifiers or name-worshippers, Religion in Russia (Religia v Rossii) (in Russian),
http://religion.russ.ru/discussions/20011221-senina.html, p. 7.
50
This at last is clear. The Uncreated Name is clearly distinguished from the created
name, and it is clearly stated that it is the Uncreated Name (in the nameworshippers
terminology) that sanctifies the icon, not the created name inscribed on
it. Can we agree with this?
We can certainly agree that it is the grace of God, and not the physical inscription
that sanctifies the icon. At the same time, the physical inscription is necessary,
because it is through that inscription, as through a channel, that the grace of God
sanctifies the icon. This is confirmed by St. John of Damascus, who writes: In
obedience to Church tradition, we allow the paying of reverence to icons that are
sanctified by the name of God and the friends of God and for this reason are
overshadowed by the grace of the Divine Spirit.94 And again: Divine grace is
communicated to objects consisting of matter, since they bear the names of those
who are represented on them.95 As the Seventh Ecumenical Council says: The
visible icon has communion with the archetype only according to its name, and not
according to its essence. And again: The icon has communion with the archetype
only according to its name, and not according to its very essence The icon receives
the very name of the Lord; through it alone is it in communion with Him; and for
that very reason it is holy and worthy of honour.
Of course, the presence of the inscription alone does not guarantee the
sanctification of the icon. Otherwise, completely inaccurate or even blasphemous
representations of God and the saints would be icons so long as they contained their
names. Icons are accepted as true and holy representations of their holy archetypes
insofar as they are more or less accurate likenesses of these archetypes, where by
likeness we mean the composition of the icon as a whole. The presence of the correct
name is only a part of the representation - albeit a very important part.96 That is why
13

St. Tarasius, president of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, writes: It is fitting to
accept the holy icons of Jesus Christ so long as these icons are painted with
historical accuracy, in agreement with the Gospel story. 97
Thus there must be at least a visible, historico-representational link between the
icon and the archetype. That is why St. Theodore the Studite writes: Even if we
allow that the icon does not look the same as the archetype because of the lack of
skill of the artist, nevertheless our arguments do not lose their force. For the
veneration is given to the icon not because it is unlike the archetype, but because it is
like it. 98 In other words, for St. Theodore, the relationship of the icon to the
94 St. John of Damascus, First Sermon against those who deny the holy icons, 16.
95 St. John of Damascus, First Sermon against those who deny the holy icons, 36.
96 And for the purely practical reason that without the name we in many cases would not be able to
determine whom the given icon represents!
97 Mansi, XIII, 404D; quoted in Leonid Ouspensky, The Theology of Icons, Crestwood, N.Y.: St.
Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1992, p. 167.
98 St. Theodore, Antirrheticus III, 5; in Ouspensky, op. cit., p. 167. Even Fr. Gregory admits that for St.
Theodore the Studite the most important line of defence of icon-veneration passes via the
establishment of a correspondence between the icon and its archetype (yendorff, op. cit., p. 381).
51
archetype is not established by the name in itself, but by their general
correspondence (resemblance) to each other.
So why is the name necessary? Because it is part of the likeness, part of the
historical picture, part of the Gospel story. But not the whole of it. And of course,
this written name, being a physical object, cannot be considered to be an Energy of
God, and cannot sanctify the icon. The name itself is sanctified by the Energies, and
is then a channel, as it were, for the Energies of God that sanctify the icon. And the
Energies of God sanctify the icon in response to the faith and prayer of those who
make and venerate them; for matter is filled with divine grace, writes St. John of
Damascus, through prayer addressed to those portrayed in the images.99
The matter becomes clearer when we consider the names of the saints. It is
obvious that the icon of the Apostle Peter is not sanctified only by the created name
Peter, and also not by any uncreated name Peter (for none exists), but by the
grace of God, which issues from the archetype, the Apostle Peter himself, to the icon
because of the general resemblance between the icon and the archetype.
Now let us return to Seninas article, in which it is said that God and the saints
have one and the same name. What is Seninas aim in insisting that God and the
saints have one and the same name? And what relation does this have to the
nature of names and icons?
It appears that the following argument is being adduced: Just as the saints are
gods, insofar as God abides in them, and also in their clothes and names, in the same
way the Name of God is God, insofar as God abides in it.
Now the saints are indeed called gods in the Holy Scriptures (Ye are gods, and
all of you the sons of the Most High (Psalm 81.6)), so we can agree that God and the
saints have one and the same name if we pay no heed to the not insignificant fact
that the saints are called gods with a small letter g, and never with a big letter
G. But it is important to note that this conclusion contradicts the nameworshippers
arguments on the nature of names. For, as was noted above, they insist
that Jesus as applied to Jesus the son of Nun is not the same name as Jesus as
14

applied to Jesus, the Son of God. hus according to their own principles, God in
relation to God Himself, and god in relation to the Mother of God, and god in
relation to St. Nicholas, etc. are all different names.
But what kind of name are we talking about in this context? Created or uncreated?
Created, it would seem, since God abides in His creatures, and names here are
placed on the same level as clothes and clothes, it goes without saying, are
created things. But created names cannot be called the uncreated God. Even the
saints cannot be called that. We say that they are gods by grace, and grace, of
course, is uncreated. But that does not mean that they are uncreated Gods (or gods).
99 St. John of Damascus, Ancient Documentation and Testimony of the Holy Fathers concerning Images,
in
St. John of Damascus on the Divine Images, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1980, p.
36.
52
Once again we see with what amazing skill and cunning the name-worshippers mix
up two different senses of the word name: name as a created word (the normal,
everyday, and at the same time patristically sanctified sense), and name as the
uncreated Energy or Grace of God (the unusual, strictly specialized, Dionysian
sense). We see an artfully created confusion. Its aim: to demonstrate that the created
name is in fact uncreated, that both the uncreated God Himself, and those created
beings in which He abides, are one and the same...
In order to gain complete clarity here, we need carefully to distinguish between
the many different ways in which God may be said to be present in a thing. First,
there is the sense in which God is in all places and fills all things. Without this
universal presence of God sustaining all things, the whole universe would disappear
into nothingness. But does that mean that God is all things? Certainly not; for this
would be pantheism, and would imply that God is even the devil! Secondly, there is
the sense in which God is present in holy but inanimate things such as icons, holy
water, holy oil, the cross, the Holy Scriptures. Because of this special presence of God
in these things, they are holy and we pay them honour not the honour and
worship that is due God alone (Greek: otcio), but the honour and veneration
(Greek: tookuvqoi) that is due to that which God has sanctified. Thirdly, there is
the sense in which God is present in men by virtue of the fact that men are created in
the image and likeness of God. Even evil men who have lost the likeness of God
retain his image; and that image is due veneration. Saints are worthy, of course, of
far greater veneration, so great that we call them gods by grace; for they are not only
made in the image of God they have recovered His likeness.
There is an important difference between the holiness of the saints and the
holiness of honourable matter. The energies of God can enter and sanctify a vast
variety of material objects for example, wood in the holy cross, water in holy
baptism, oil in the sacrament of anointing. But we do not call these objects gods by
grace. The saints fall into a different category because, unlike physical objects such as
wood, water and oil, they are made in the image and likeness of God; and it was by
virtue of this likeness that God became man without ceasing to be God. But God
cannot become wood or water or oil. For God can only become that which is akin to
Him, which already, in its originally created state, bears the imprint of that freedom,
rationality and eternity which belongs to God alone.
15

God took on matter, made it part of Himself, only in and through His natural
likeness, that is, man.100 But matter can be said to become divine only by being
enhypostasised in Him, in the man who is also God, the God-Man Jesus Christ.
Thus there is a cardinal difference between the wood of the holy cross, the water of
holy baptism, and the oil of the sacrament of anointing, on the one hand, and the
bread and the wine of the holy Eucharist after they have been sanctified and
transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the other. 100 That is why the monastic
saints are called like in Slavonic (prepodobnij in Slavonic). See Ouspensky, op. cit., p. 158, note 10.
53
The grace of God workson all these material objects; but in the case of the wood, the
water and the oil, itworks to sanctify, but not deify in the sense of make part of God
hypostatically; whereas in the case of the bread and the wine it works to incorporate
that matter into God by making it into the Body and Blood of the God-Man.
When we say that the saints are gods by grace, we mean that they are filled with
grace, that they are deified by participation in the God-Man, but not that they are
God, or the grace of God. If the saints were the grace of God, then they would be
uncreated, since the grace of God is uncreated. Thus to say that the saints are the
grace of God is heresy; for it removes the boundary between created and uncreated
being. The greatest of the saints, the Mother of God, is called by St. Gregory Palamas
the boundary of created and uncreated nature101; and she attains this supremely
exalted position, more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond
compare than the Seraphim through the action of the uncreated grace of God
working in her, penetrating her completely and making her all-holy and full of
grace (the Greek word kc_oitoucvq could perhaps better be translated:
engraced). But she remains a created being. To confuse the created being of the
saints with uncreated grace is an anthropological variant of the Monophysite heresy.
If it is a heresy to say that the likenesses of God that are the saints are the grace of
God, then a fortiori it is heresy to say that the names of God are the grace of God, or
the verbal action of God, as Bulatovich would put it.
The contemporary name-worshipper Eugene Pavlenko has constructed a similar
argument to Seninas and come to the same conclusion. First he cites St. John of
Damascus: If a certain person painted Christ crucified on an icon and someone asks
him: Who is this?, he would reply: Christ our God, who became man for our
sakes.102 Then he cites the similar thought of St. Theodore the Studite: If people
study the imprint of the portrayed person, they call the icon Christ or an image of
Christ Christ by reason of the identity of name, an image of Christ by reason of
the relationship.103 And so, writes Pavlenko, they call the icon an image of
Christ by reason of the similarity of representation, and Christ by reason of its
inscription. So much the more can and must the very Name of Christ be called God
by reason of the presence in it of the Divine energies.104
Let us note the insistence: the Name of Christ can and must be called God
(God with a capital G!). Can maybe; must certainly not. It is not the
normal way of speaking about icons. It is not the normal way because it engenders
confusion, confusion between the icon and its archetype. Is that to say that St. John
and St. Theodore were engendering confusion? By no means! They were making a
special point in a special context. They would no doubt be very surprised to learn
how their words would be used by the name-worshippers to make a quite different
16

101 St. Gregory Palamas, On the Dormition, PG 151, 472B.
102 St. John of Damascus, First Sermon against those who deny the holy icons, 67.
103 St. Theodore, P.G. 99, 34 1BC.
104 Pavlenko, Name-worshipping and the Byzantine theory of the image, Theological Collection
(Bogoslovskij Sbornik), VIII, Moscow, 2001, pp. 56-69 (in Russian);
http://imiaslav.narod.ru/sovr/sovr2eugen.htm (in Russian).
54
point in a quite different context. The two defenders of Orthodoxy against
iconoclasm are here emphasising the undividedness of an icon and its archetype, by
virtue of which, in praying in front of an icon of Christ, one can say that one is
praying in front of Christ, which undividedness is reflected in the identity of names.
For the honour rendered in prayer to the icon ascends to the archetype, as St. Basil
the Great says. But undividedness is not the same as identification.
And so St. Theodore says in another place: The archetype and its representation
are not at all the same thing, since one is the truth, and the other a shadow.105 For
obviously a piece of wood, even a piece of wood sanctified by the energies of God, is
not the same thing as the Lord Jesus Christ. And the same with icons to the Mother
of God and the saints. For, as Archbishop Nicon quite correctly says: It is accepted
by the Church that there are wonder-working icons [of the Mother of God] in
which a certain power of God is inherent But nobody calls them the Mother of
God.106 Or if they do, it is understood by everybody that the icon and its archetype
are different in nature, even if they share the same name. In the same way, we may
point to a photograph of Peter and say Thats Peter!, but it is understood by
everybody that the photograph is only an image of Peter and not Peter himself.
St. Theodore the Studite confirms that the name Christ is given to the icon of
Christ and Christ Himself in different senses. Thus he writes: "In the proper sense the
icon of Christ is called His icon, and not in the proper sense is it called Christ".107
And again: "The icon of Christ is called Christ, not in the proper sense, but in a
figurative sense".108
What is said here about images must also be said about names: they and their
bearers are undivided, but at the same time unconfused, being of different natures.
In prayer it is the undividedness that is felt, so that a person who is praying to Christ
in front of an icon of Christ and using the name of Christ feels no difference between
the name and the icon of Christ, on the one hand, and Christ Himself, on the other.
Only when he stops praying, reflects, looks at the icon in isolation from its archetype,
or thinks of the Name in isolation from the Person named, does the unconfusedness
of icon and archetype, name and person named, come to the foreground of
consciousness. But the psychological fusion of icon, name and person prayed to in
prayer a fusion which is at the same time spiritual, since it is formed by the grace of
God is not the same as ontological identity or equivalence.
Schema-monk Epiphany (Chernov) confirms this thought: The holy and Godbearing
Fathers teach us to venerate the name of God as an image of God that is holy
and worthy of honour. This is precisely the teaching of St. Theodore the Studite: The
105 St. Theodore, First refutation of iconoclasm, 12.
106 Archbishop Nicon, op. cit., p. 860.
107 St. Theodore, Letter 147, to Diogenes. Quoted in Fedchenko, op. cit.
108 St. Theodore, Letter 161, to Niketas Spatharios. Quoted in Fedchenko, op. cit.
55
17

name is a certain natural image of the object.109 An image of the object, and not the
object itself! For the object itself is the archetype for the image. God is the archetype
for every representation (pictorial in the icon and verbal in the name). And there can
never be equality or identity between the image and the archetype. For always,
teaches the holy confessor, the archetype will be the archetype, just as the
representation will be the representation, and the one will never turn into the
other.110 That is, God, as the Archetype, will always remain the Archetype, and the
name of God, as a representation, will always remain a representation. And God will
never become a name, and the name of God will never become God, although God is
present in the name of God as the archetype is present in the image. But this
presence is not according to essence.111
Conclusion: 9. It is the grace of God that sanctifies the holy icons, which grace is
communicated from the archetype to the icon if the icon bears a general
resemblance
to its archetype. This resemblance should include the inscribed, created name of
the
archetype. But the inscribed, created name is not the sanctifying element, the
grace
of God, but only the means, the channel, as it were, through which the grace of
God
is communicated to the icon.
109 A fuller quotation: The name is the name of that which is named by it, and a certain, as it were,
natural image of the object which bears this name: in it the unity of veneration is indivisible
(Antirrheticus, 1, 14).
110 St. Theodore, Third refutation of iconoclasm, 4
111 Schema-monk Epiphany, Against Hilarion, Conversation 3, 7 (in Russian).

Icon Appreciation The Iconophile Perspective:
The Purpose of Icons:
Byzantine iconophiles felt that icons served the purpose of inspiring, teaching
and guiding people in their spiritual life (Ware). In order to show their devotion,
iconophiles typically bowed, prayed and kissed icons. They believed that if icons
solely hung on the walls of churches or homes for decoration, the images held no
purpose (Boyce). Byzantine iconophiles also believed that religious icons were
able to create a link between the worshipper and God. When the worshipper
prayed to the person depicted in the image, the icon acted as a window into
Heaven by directly connecting them with Christ, the Virgin, angels and saints
(De Ruyter). Those who prayed to icons and appreciated them typically asked
for miraculous healings and good fortune (Brooks).
As supporters of religious art, iconophiles expressed their views that icons in
churches assisted individuals who were illiterate to understand through visual
images what they could not read in words (Huyghe 268). Through visual
representations, even the illiterate population could learn to recognize the names
of saints, as well as distinguish the main narrative subjects and stories. For
18

individuals who could read, icons simply emphasized even further their
comprehension of biblical stories and prominent figures (Cormack 76). As St.
Basil stated perfectly about religious images: What the word transmits through
the ear, the painting silently shows through the image (Boyce).
Symbolism:
Iconophiles from the Byzantine Empire believed all icons were unique and full of
symbolism. After examining various icons, it may seem that they only portray
width and height. However, there is a third dimension that actually goes beyond
what our eyes can see and enters the spiritual realm of symbolic meaning. Take
for instance the icon of Christ below, which emphasizes specific features: His
ears are large, which represents He hears everything, while His mouth is
depicted as small, symbolizing that He only speaks words of wisdom (De
Ruyter). The crown of light symbolizes Christs radiating glory and surrounds His
head as it is the center of the spirit (Ware).
Icon of Christ
(Cormack 67)
During our research, we noticed that the Virgin and Child were two common
figures who were admired by the Byzantine iconophiles, as well as represented
on religious icons. While each image offers different representations, as well as
being unique, there are still evident similarities between icons of the Virgin and
Child. In the following examples, both icons featuring these two figures represent
beauty and importance. From the images, it is clear that the Madonna or Virgin
cherishes her miraculous Son and holds Him closely in her hands. In both icons,
the Virgins hand is pointed to her Child, which represents and symbolizes that
He is the way to salvation (Cormack 182).
Icon of the Virgin and Child (10th century) Madonna and Child (11th century)
(Cormack 182) (Brooks)
John of Damascus:
Although John of Damascus died before the end of iconoclasm in the Byzantine
Empire, he was a prominent figure who was in the defence of the veneration of
icons. His writings contained in three Orations against those who attack the holy
images was written from a monastery near Jerusalem and was considered to be
one of the most important defences in support of images (Cameron 102).
Damascus opposed the Byzantine monarch, as he felt the destruction of religious
icons was an unlawful action. He believed that a religious icon enabled the
worshipper to connect with the unseen and spiritual world. Damascus argued
that the admiration of icons was not idolatry, but that they simply demonstrated
our faith, as well as professed our belief in the Incarnation (Khalaf).
Although iconoclasm was reversed by Empress Irene in 787, the controversy
appeared again in 815. The second wave of iconoclasm seemed to die away
due to declining military and economic crises. It was Empress Theodora who
permitted religious images once again in 843 (Cameron 102). The following icon
depicts iconoclasm from an iconophile perspective and we feel it represents John
of Damascus feelings perfectly. The icon entitled The Triumph of Orthodoxy
represents the end of iconoclasm. The image declares the importance of icons
19

in the Orthodox church and represents prominent figures who were against the
destruction of images. Empress Theodora and her son Michael III are positioned
to the left, while two icons of Christ are held by iconophiles on the bottom. At the
center of the icon the Virgin and Child are displayed, symbolizing their
importance (Cormack 29).
Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy
(Cormack 28)
What Happened During the Byzantine
Iconoclasms?
Unlike our argument suggested, religious Byzantine icons were not appreciated
by everyone. Iconoclasms dominated the Byzantine Empire throughout the 8th
and early 9th centuries in two phases. The first iconoclasm lasted from 726-81,
while the second took place from 815-43. During these periods of time
thousands of religious images were destroyed by whitewashing or defacement,
which resulted in very few early Byzantine icons surviving. While these
iconoclasms were occurring, the production and use of any religious images
were also banned (Brooks). Although our sources did not contain any pictures of
defaced icons, the following image from 843 shows a manuscript illustration of
the Crucifixion and iconoclasts whitewashing an icon of Christ (Cormack 101).
Illustration of iconoclasts whitewashing an icon of Christ
(Cormack 101)
Destruction of Icons The Iconoclast
Perspective:
Debate:
According to iconoclasts, worshipping religious icons was considered an abuse
amounting to idolatry (Cameron 102). They felt that religious icons broke one of
the Ten Commandments, which forbids making and worshipping images.
Iconoclasts condemned the production of religious images, as they felt it was
impossible to represent Christ. In their opinion the only true image of Christ was
the Eucharist, which they believed was His actual body and blood. Simply by
attempting to construct an image of Christ, the icon artist was automatically
separating His divine and human nature, as the divine cannot be represented.
On the other hand, iconophiles argued that it was possible to represent Christ
symbolically since it was similar to how the Holy Liturgy is a reproduction of the
Passion (Demus 6).
Leo III
In 726, Emperor Leo III had the worship of icons banned. Leo III was strongly in
opposition to the religious use of images and he regarded it to be idolatrous to
worship icons. Khalaf states that in 726, Leo III interpreted a devastating
underwater earthquake to be a warning sign from the divine to turn back to
Christ. By 730, Leo III had ordered all religious icons to be removed from the
churches, which began a war of military force against images (Khalaf).
Throughout his reign, Leo III attempted to eliminate religious images that had
been growing in popularity among individuals. Although Leo III gained the
20

support from some clergy members, there was little sign of any popular support
and many fierce campaigns rose against him (Cameron 102). It was only in
Rome and North Italy that the force of the powerful Emperor was not felt. After
Leo IIIs reign, his son and successor Constantine furthered his fathers beliefs by
condemning the worship of images as idolatrous (Khalaf).
After Effects of the Byzantine Iconoclasms:
The Byzantine church considered the end of the second wave of iconoclasm in
843 to be the ultimate victory. During this time there was a great revival and
reintroduction to religious art, as well as holy icons (Cormack 105). Icon types
from earlier centuries were copied in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods.
Monastic life soared with new commissioned books and texts, as well as pictorial
schemes being created to decorate the churches (Cameron 105). Cormack
states that the downside to iconoclasm was the disruption of the artists working
conditions, as well as their access to essential materials. Since art was an
apprenticeship system where the father passed his knowledge and tools onto his
son, Cormack stresses the difficulty iconoclasm would have caused by halting
these necessary procedures (111). After the iconoclasms ended, religious icons
were able to return to their primary role by serving the beliefs of the artists and
admirers (Cameron 105).
Connection to Todays Society:
Our research on the Byzantine iconoclasms led us to an article about crucifixes
in Italy. The news article reminded us of the two different perspectives of the
iconoclasts and the iconophiles. Piagotts report pertains to the European Court
of Human Rights and a recent ruling against the use of crucifixes in Italian
classrooms. Before the ruling was addressed, a law from over eighty years ago
required crucifixes to be hung in all Italian schools. Certain individuals objected
to the presence of crucifixes in schools, as they felt they should be able to give
their children a secular education. Although there were people who supported
the new ruling, many church leaders professed their anger. They stressed that
the crucifix is more than just a religious symbol. Instead, it is an old tradition that
is not meant to divide or exclude individuals (Piagott).
We find that religious issues have caused controversies in Canadian public
schools as well and that religion seems to have been taken out of the classroom.
Instead, public schools are secular and they are separated from religion. Years
ago, teachers read their students passages from the Bible and recited the Lords
Prayer. However, today religious images do not hold power in schools and they
are not present in classrooms. We believe that it is essential to examine and
evaluate the changes that have occurred over time. Although many of us tend
not to look back to the Byzantine Empire, it is interesting to review the past in
order to see how society has altered significantly.
Conclusions:
Although we argued that religious icons from the Byzantine Empire were
appreciated by everyone, our statement was falsified through research. We
discovered that throughout the 8th and early 9th centuries, the Byzantines went
21

through two waves of iconoclasms (Cameron 101). From the beginning of our
research, it became evident that the iconoclasts were strongly against the
worship of religious images. The iconoclasts went so far as having religious
icons removed from churches, as well as having them whitewashed or destroyed.
They felt the worship of icons bordered on idolatry and broke one of the Ten
Commandments (Demus 6).
On the other hand, we discovered how in the lives of the iconophiles, religious
icons played a personal and emotional role in worship (Cormack 69). They truly
appreciated religious images and believed that icons held a deep, symbolic
meaning. Through the figure depicted in the icon, iconophiles believed their
prayers were received by the spiritual world (Cormack 2). In a world full of
tragedy and suffering, icons were able to provide joy, courage, as well as
strength (Boyce). From our findings, we feel that the iconoclasms greatly
affected the Byzantine Empire and left lasting effects that influenced future
centuries.

paralel la propovduirea oral sau scris. Ic-le nu sunt rupte de prototip
pentru c amintirea i ist. nu este rupt de prototipul care st la originea ei. Ic. este
ecoul istoric al prototipului Hristos, al ntruprii cuvntului.
- relaia ic.- cuvnt este reciproc, implicat. Cuv.-le sunt ic.-e ale lucrurilor care
produc la nivelul SNC imaginile lor, iar ic. duce de la nceput mintea spre imaginea
lucrurilor prezentate. Ic i cuv. sunt deosebite de prototip, deci nu sunt realitatea
nsi,ci pun n relaie cu ea. Ic. demonstreaz prezena lui Hristos.
Sf. Teodort Studitul : "prototipul i ic. sunt corelative precum e jumtatea i a
doua jumtate. Cci prototipul aduce mpreun cu sine numaidect icoana, al crei
prototip este : i jumtate va aduce cu sine numaidect cealalt jumtate n raport cu
care se numete jumtate. Cci nu e prototip dac nu e icoan... cele ce sunt mpreun,
mpreun se cuget i se exist. Aadar deaoarece , nu se ncadreaz ntre ele nici un
rstimp, nici nchinarea nu e alta pentru fiecare, ci e una i aceeai.
- Ic. i prototipul se cuprind deodat cu mintea fr a se confunda . Ele nu se
identific magic. Icoanei i se d nchinare relativ, iar lui Hristos adorare, fiinial. n
acest sens icoana este un prototip i invers.

n al doilea Tratat n aprarea sfintelor icoane, Sfntul Ioan
Damaschinul exprima punctul de vedere al Bisericii n raport cu acest principiu: i suntem
supui, mprate, n cele ce privesc viaa i lucrurile acestei lumi, impozitele, contribuiile etc.
tot ce ine de vrednicia ta n iconomia afacerilor lumeti; dar n ceea ce privete instituia
eclesiastic, i recunoatem pe pstorii care ne-au nvat i care au ntemeiat aezmintele
bisericeti102.acest tratat cuprinde nu doar
un rspuns la teoria iconoclast, ci i o expunere teologic foarte complet i sistematic a
nvturii ortodoxe despre imagini.
22


23


24

Ilustraie cum iconoclatii distrug o icoan
a lui Hristos (Cormack 101)

25

Mosaic panel of Justinian(Cormack 61)
Gold icon of the Archangel Michael
) (Grabar 160)

Ivory icon with Saint Demetrios
(Brooks)
Anex


Painted wood icon with the
Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Cormack 61)
(Brooks)
26


O tradiie care face referire la chipul Domnului Hristos o constituie un
raport al proconsulului Iudeii, pe nume Publius Lentulus, pe care l-ar fi
trimis lui Tiberiu (14-37) i senatului roman. Proconsulul l descrie astfel:
El (Hristos) e un brbat cu chip mre, cu faa venerabil care insufl
dragoste i respect. Prul capului su este glbui, strlucitor, cre, fcnd
de la frunte n mijlocul capului, crare, dup chipul Nazarienilor, i trecnd
mai jos de umere. Fruntea-i este lat i vesel, fr de ncreituri, are o
rumeneal uoar; barba i e deas n culoarea prului de pe cap, i
desprit n furculi, dar nu lung. Cltorete descul i cu capul
descoperit. Ochii i sunt strlucitori i ptrunztori.