The importance of sacred images in Eastern Catholic worship must not be underestimated, for they are a visible reminder to the faithful of the incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who entered into the material world in order to redeem and sanctify it.  That being said, in this paper I will examine the Byzantine Catholic theology of icons:  first by briefly focusing upon the iconoclastic disputes of the 7th to the 9th centuries; and second by examining the theology of icons and how the Eastern Churches see them as a perpetual extension of Christ’s incarnation in the life of the Church; and third by explaining the nature of deifying grace within Byzantine theology, and how it is held to be a true ontological participation by man in the very being and life of God; and finally, I will conclude my examination of icons within the Byzantine tradition by looking at the importance of icons, and in particular at the importance of the iconostasis, as theophanic manifestations of the divine presence here upon earth. 

          Icons play an important role in the worship of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and this role is not simply based upon an aesthetic sense of beauty, but is instead founded upon the dogmatic teaching of the Church as it is expressed in the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (A.D. 787).  It was during that council that the Church defended her doctrine of sacred images against the attacks of the Iconoclastic heretics of the 7th to the 9th centuries, condemning their destruction of images and endorsing the veneration of icons as a fundamental element of the Catholic faith.  Thus, in the East the Council of Nicaea II was seen as the final and definitive completion of the Church’s Christological doctrine as it had been formulated at the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople III, for it was at the council dealing with icons in A.D. 787 that the Church defined as a dogma of faith that the veneration of sacred images was a Christian duty, and it based this dogmatic definition upon the doctrine of the incarnation itself. 

          Therefore, icons must not be reduced to simple didactic tools for educating the lay faithful; instead, they must be thought of as a perpetual extension of the incarnation within the Church’s Divine Liturgy, for they visibly manifest and bestow the grace of God upon those who venerate them in purity of faith and charity of heart.  As Fr. Kucharek, a Ukrainian Catholic priest, explains, “The Byzantine East . . . saw clearly in the decision of the seventh general council a contribution toward a better understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation or, more precisely, the mystery of God’s communication of Himself to the world and to man in particular.” [1]  In other words, an icon is not a piece of art, and the iconographer is not an artist in the modern sense of that word, because he is not trying to express his own ideas, nor is he trying to display his own natural talents.  The iconographer is first and foremost creating a liturgical prayer, a window into heaven, and in order to do this he must live the Orthodox faith through prayer and fasting, while following the norms established by the Church's iconographic Tradition.  Moreover, in writing an icon the iconographer is creating a specific memory (anamnesis) of an event or person within the life of the Church, a memory (anamnesis) that is identical to the memory (anamnesis) of the whole Church. Thus, an icon is a theophany (a personal manifestation of God made possible through an eruption of divine energy into the world), which means that an icon really is what it signifies; and so, to touch an icon is to touch the personal reality of the mystery itself.  As a consequence the Eastern Church holds that icons are not simply pieces of art; rather, they are prayers, that is, they are a living expression of the Orthodox faith that enable man to come into contact with God in the present moment.

          Now the controversy with the iconoclasts clearly effected the ceremonial life of the Church of the East, and the most important change concerned the veneration of the unconsecrated elements of the bread and wine, which were seen as icons of the Lord.  During the great entrance in both the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and in that of St. Basil the Great the unconsecrated elements were venerated, and this practice developed in response to the teaching of the spurious Iconoclastic council of A.D. 754, which taught that the only proper image of Christ was the Eucharist.  The Byzantine Churches after the seventh ecumenical council emphasized the difference between the unconsecrated elements and the consecrated elements, holding that the former were a true icon of Christ (thus repudiating the earlier Iconoclastic council), while the latter is Christ Himself mystically present through the transformation of the elements into His very body and blood.  The recognition of this distinction within the Byzantine liturgy led to a cult of veneration of the unconsecrated elements as an icon of the Lord. [2]

           The orthodox party in the dispute achieved this new emphasis by having the priest process with the bread and wine to the altar of Eucharistic sacrifice, and then turn and face the people just before entering into the sanctuary in front of the Royal Doors.  This new practice allowed the people to offer veneration to the unconsecrated elements, reverencing them and making the sign of the cross.  Later on in the liturgy, following the prayer of consecration, the priest would come out from behind the iconostasis through the Royal Doors and while facing the people He would show them the newly consecrated gifts, crying out, “Let us be attentive!  Holy things to the holy,” [3] and the people would adore the Lord present in the Holy Eucharist, no longer just venerating the elements, but offering them true adoration as befits the incarnate God.  At this point in the liturgy the people would sing the words, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; God is the Lord and He has revealed Himself to us.” [4]  Thus, the people adored the sacred species as the real presence of the Lord Himself hidden under the veil of the sacred signs. 

          All of this activity on the part of both the priest and the people requires a much more detailed understanding of the nature of sacred worship and the distinction that must be made between the worship of veneration and the worship of adoration.  This distinction between absolute and relative worship was made by St. John Damascene in his treatise on images, where he said that, “Absolute worship is [the] adoration, which we give to God alone,” while relative worship is the veneration which we give to the Holy Theotokos and to the saints, “since they are truly gods, not by nature, but because they partake of the divine nature,” and this veneration is given to them, “not because they deserve it on their own account, but because they bear in themselves Him who is by nature worshipful.” [5]  Thus, the worship given to the Virgin Mary and the saints is not a form of idolatry, because it is not that absolute worship of adoration which is reserved to God alone, and moreover, the veneration given to the saints is given to them because they have been made holy by God, and so in venerating the saints one honors the source of their holiness, that is, one honors God Himself.

          St. Theodore Studite, probably the greatest defender of the holy icons after St. John of Damascus, helped to work out the relationship that exists between the sacred icon and its heavenly prototype.  In St. Theodore’s theology an icon has a personal (hypostatic) relation of name with its heavenly prototype, while simultaneously being distinct from its archetype in essence.  This application of the technical theological terms “hypostasis” and “essence” reverses the ordering of their use in relation to the Holy Trinity.  In other words, St. Theodore Studite has taken two of the primary terms used in the theology of the Trinity and has applied them in his own theology of icons, only when used of the Trinity the distinction is made at the level of the persons (hypostases), while the essence is one and the same.  But as it concerns icons the reverse is true, for when one speaks of an icon, it is clear that the essence of the icon is distinct from the essence of its prototype in heaven, while the icon and its prototype are one in hypostatic (personal) relation. [6]  

          As is clear from what has been said, St. Theodore masterfully used elements of the Church’s traditional doctrine of the Trinity and applied it to the theology of images.  But Byzantine theology goes even further and holds that an “. . . icon is a veritable theophany, a dynamic manifestation of divine energy at work on earth.  The person represented is in some spiritual way actually present in the icon.  From this presence flow streams of grace upon the sinful world, purifying and sanctifying it.” [7]  Thus, by venerating a sacred icon the worshipper comes into direct contact with God and with the person depicted in the holy image.

          Now in order to better understand the importance of icons in Eastern Catholic worship it will be necessary to clarify the nature of deifying grace (energy) in Byzantine theology.  To do that I will have to briefly relate some of the historical events surrounding the dispute that arose between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria over the nature of grace in the middle of the 14th century.  St. Gregory Palamas, who came to the defense of the hesychastic monks of Mt. Athos in their dispute with Barlaam, held that grace is an uncreated participation in God’s own life and being. [8]  While, on the other hand, Barlaam of Calabria taught that grace was a created reality, and held that it was not possible for a man to participate in God’s life and glory during his temporal state of existence, because for Barlaam it was only the dead who could truly see God.

          Barlaam began his attacks on the Eastern Catholic theology of grace after hearing that the Athonite monks claimed to be able to see the uncreated Taboric light while in ecstatic states of prayer.  Barlaam rejected this idea and insisted that the monks were being deluded, and he went on to accuse them of being Messalian heretics. [9]  Barlaam, based upon his own theological speculations, held that it was only possible to know about God by first looking at the created world and then by drawing various analogies between God and the world, in order to try and determine the nature of the divine being.  Thus he held that it was not possible to experience any real participation in the divine being whether through prayer or even through the sacraments, because in his view there was an unbridgeable gulf between the uncreated and the created.      

          Clearly this theological dispute involves two very distinct conceptions of nature of deifying grace and of salvation itself, and it should be noted that it took a little over twenty years for the true doctrine of the Eastern Churches to triumph over the heresy of Barlaam.  St. Gregory, in response to the activities of Barlaam, asserted that within God’s own being there is a distinction to be made, without a separation, between His essence and His uncreated energies, and that the former (i.e., the divine essence) is incommunicable, while the latter (i.e., the divine energies) is communicable.  As Fr. Maloney explains, “The energies are, we might say, ‘God for us.’  They are God in loving and creative relationship to us out of the motive of sharing His holiness and inner life with us.” [10]  So, for St. Gregory Palamas the divine energies are God as He condescends to enter into the world; and moreover, this divine condescension means that man can experience the beatific vision of God in this life, for he has the ability to participate in God’s uncreated energies in the present moment.  In other words, man has the ability to see the uncreated Light of grace and to be transformed here and now into that which he sees. 

          The ineffable distinction between the divine essence and the uncreated divine energies ensures that man’s divinization by grace is an ontological reality and not merely an accidental or metaphorical one.  Based upon this distinction St. Gregory Palamas delineates three modes of union in God:  (1) the mode of union according to the divine essence, and this mode of union is experienced only by the three divine persons; (2) the mode of union which is called “hypostatic,” and this mode of union is experienced only by the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Logos; and (3) the mode of union experienced at the level of energy, and this mode of union is proper to all those who have been made partakers of the divine nature through Christ's incarnation and His Paschal Mystery. [11]  Thus, by making these ontological distinctions within the Godhead, St. Gregory Palamas was able to safeguard the reality of man’s deification, while avoiding pantheism, for as Fr. Edmund Hussey explains:

          When we are deified, we are truly united to

          God; we share in His life; we become, in a

          sense, ‘uncreated’ by our participation in the

          divine uncreated energy.  Yet we do not

          cease to be creatures; we do not lose our

          natural identity; we are not swallowed up by

          God or absorbed into Him.  Rather, the three

          divine persons communicate their natural

          energy to us in such a way that we possess

          it personally but not naturally.  Our nature

          and our natural energy remain intact. Yet

          the divine energy is a personalized energy

          for us since it becomes an enhypostaton of

          our persons.  Because the energy is

          transmissible from one person to another,

          there exists for man the possibility of a

          personal communion with God that does

          not confuse natures. [12]

In other words, those who participate in the uncreated energies of God are configured to Christ and become perfect icons of His being and glory.

          The distinction between God’s essence and His uncreated energies is fundamental to Eastern Catholic theology, for in the Byzantine tradition salvation is not so much the removal of sin (which is of course necessary), but is primarily understood to be an elevation of man into the very life and glory of God.  In other words, salvation in the Byzantine theological tradition is the divinization of man, that is, it is the grace (energy) of union with God, whereby man becomes a son of God in the only begotten Son of God.  This radical nature of salvation as deification endangers the transcendence of God, but by making a distinction between God’s essence and His uncreated energies, it is possible to avoid falling into the heresy of pantheism, while simultaneously asserting the ontological reality of man’s divinization.  In this way God remains essentially distinct from His creation, even though He is energetically present within it.  God, in His essence, is utterly transcendent and other than the created world, but in His energies He permeates the created order, both by bringing it into existence in the first place, and by sustaining it within His energies from one moment to the next, for as St. Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” [13]

          So the Palamite doctrine of the uncreated energies is important because it protects God’s absolute essential transcendence in relation to the world, while simultaneously asserting His immanence in relation to creation, especially as it is experienced in the Church’s liturgical life.  The Divine Liturgy is the pre-eminent meeting place of God and man, for it is through the Divine Liturgy that man experiences his own deification and intimate union with God, and all of this is possible because God Himself has entered into man’s own reality through the incarnation.  Moreover, this radical condescension on God’s part is perpetuated under the veil of the sacred signs of the bread and wine that have been consecrated into Christ’s body and blood during the Divine Liturgy, and which are consumed by the faithful thus assimilating them to the Eternal Logos made man by the reception of the divine energy present within the sacrament. 

          It is in receiving the Eucharist that a man is configured perfectly to Christ, thus becoming a true iconic representation of the Lord, for just as the Lord is one divine person in two natures, so too those who participate in the Divine Liturgy and who receive the Blessed Sacrament become one created person in two natures.  The communicant, who possesses his human nature through his creation in the image of God, also possesses the divine nature through his participation in God’s uncreated energy.  Hence, the Divine Liturgy is truly the summit of the Christian life, for it is a sacramental representation of the Lord’s Paschal Mystery, while it is also a  sacramental participation in the celestial worship of the Father by the Eternal Logos and all those who have been united to Him in His mystical body. [14]

          The relationship that exists between sacred images and the uncreated energy of God mimics in some sense the incarnation, because just as the divine person of the Word entered into the material creation in order to redeem humanity, so too God continues to unite Himself, through His manifesting energies, to the icons used in sacred worship.  As Photius of Constantinople wrote:

          [Icons] are no longer wooden boards . . . or

          colors bereft of the inherent power and grace

          which produces form, neither can they be so

          conceived nor so named; but rather, they are

          holy and honorable and glorified and venerable.

          For having come to participate in the energy

          that comes from above, and in those holy

          persons, they bear the form and the name and

          are dedicated [to them], they transport the

          minds to them and bring us blessings and

          divine favor from them. [15]

From this it is clear that icons are a living reality, and so they must not be thought of as “art” or as “didactic tools”; rather, they are living prayers and they bring man into contact with God in an direct way, for they truly bridge the gap between created and uncreated. [16]

          Finally, the iconostasis (i.e., the icon screen) is the centerpiece of every Byzantine Church building, for it is the visible sacramental sign that marks off the holy of holies from the main body of the Church.  The area beyond the iconostas is seen as heaven upon earth, and so only the ordained or those of the faithful deputed to serve the priest at the altar may enter, and “No woman, whatever her age or social position, may enter the sanctuary at any time.” [17]  The Royal Doors, which signify the portal into heaven, may only be used by a priest or bishop, for the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy acts as an icon of Christ for the faithful, and so it is he who offers the celestial liturgy to the Father on their behalf, as they unite themselves to his oblation upon the altar by devoutly praying and singing their parts of the liturgy. 

          Now there are some in the West who see the iconostas as “blocking the view” of the sacred actions of the priest, but in the Byzantine Church the iconostas is not thought of as a wall, but is considered to be a window into heaven.  The iconostas is the pre-eminent sign of God’s presence to the community gathered in worship, for depicted upon the icon screen are the events of our Lord’s life, His passion, death and resurrection, His ascension, and His glorious second coming, and along with these images of our Lord, there are also images of the Holy Theotokos and the other saints.  Thus, all of the events depicted and the persons portrayed are present to the congregation as a living reality.

          I will end my paper on a personal note, because it is ultimately the rich theology of sacred images in the Byzantine tradition, along with the Palamite doctrine of the uncreated divine energies, which drew me to the Eastern Church in the first place, and happily just before Easter of this year my request to change rites was approved, and I have now found my home in the liturgical, theological and spiritual tradition of the Catholic East.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Louis Bouyer.  Liturgical Piety.  (Notre Dame, IN:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1955).

Jean Cardinal Danielou.  The Bible and the Liturgy.  (Notre Dame, IN:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1956).

Ambrosias Giakalis.  Images of the Divine:  The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  (New York, NY:  E. J. Brill, 1994).

M. Edmund Hussey.  The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas.  (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Publishing, 1972).

Casimir Kucharek.  The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  (Combermere, Canada:  Alleluia Press, 1971).

Vladimir Lossky.  The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  (Crestwood, NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998).

George Maloney, S. J.   A Theology of Uncreated Energies.  (Milwaukee, WI:  Marquette University Press, 1978).

G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Editors.  The Philokalia:  The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth.  (Boston:  Faber and Faber, 1984).  4 Volumes.

George C. Papademetriou.  Introduction to Saint Gregory Palamas.  (New York, NY:  Philosophical Library, Inc., 1973).

Darwell Stone.  A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.  (New York, NY:  Longmans, Green, and Company, 1909).  2 Volumes.

St. John of Damascus.  On The Divine Images.  (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997).

St. Theodore Studite.  On The Holy Icons.  (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981).

Byzantine Book of Prayer.  (Pittsburgh, PA:  Byzantine Seminary Press, 1995).

The Importance of Icons in Eastern Christian Worship

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 650:  Christian Liturgy

Fr. Dominic Scotto, TOR

22 April 2005

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1]  Fr. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, (Combermere, Canada:  Alleluia Press, 1971), page 229.

[2]  See Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, (New York, NY:  Longmans, Green and Company, 1909), pages 150 & 168.  As Dr. Stone points out, “The distinction made by St. John of Damascus and the bishops of the Seventh Ecumenical Council that the elements are the image of Christ’s body and blood before the consecration and his actual body and blood after consecration had an important effect on the religious practice of the Eastern Churches in promoting the prevalence of the veneration of the Sacrament as an image of Christ before the consecration.  . . .  The idea already familiar in Greek theology, that before the consecration the elements are an image of the body and blood of Christ although they cease to be such an image upon actually becoming the body and blood at the consecration is worked out so as to express the successive moments of the human life of Christ and to show the rite itself as the setting forth of the whole incarnation.”  Thus the unconsecrated elements became one of the primary icons of Christ in the Eastern liturgy, which after the consecration ceased being an icon and became the actual body and blood of Christ, which could be adored before and after the reception of holy communion.

[3]  Byzantine Book of Prayer, (Pittsburgh, PA:  Byzantine Seminary Press, 1995), page 160.

[4]  Byzantine Book of Prayer, 162.

[5]  St. John of Damascus, On The Divine Images, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997), pages 82, 84-85.

[6]  See St. Theodore Studite, On The Holy Icons, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981), pages 102-103.  In his treatise on the Holy Icons St. Theodore said 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.  This is not admissible, because the nature of each has its own definition.  rather, the prototype is in the image by the similarity of hypostasis, which does not have a different principle of definition for the prototype and for the image.  Therefore we do not understand that the image lacks equality with the prototype and has an inferior glory in respect to similarity, but in respect to its different essence.  The essence of the image is not of a nature to be venerated, although the one who is portrayed appears in it for veneration.  Therefore there is no introduction of a different kind of veneration, but the image has one and the same veneration with the prototype, in accordance with the identity of likeness.”

[7]  Kucharek, 228-229.   See also Fr. Loius Bouyer, Liturgical Piety, (Notre Dame, IN:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1955), page 103.  An icon, as Fr. Bouyer said, is “. . . a true participation in the very reality of that of which it is the eikon.”

[8]  See Fr. George C. Papademetriou, Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas, (New York, NY:  Philosophical Library, 1973), pages 43-47.

[9]  The Messalian heretics held that it was possible to see the divine essence itself, but the hesychastic monks of Mt. Athos made no such claim; rather, they claimed to be able to see the uncreated light of Mt. Tabor, that is, the Light of Transfiguration, and by seeing the sacred light they held that they were transformed by the Light of grace into the very Light which they had seen.

[10]  Fr. George Maloney, S.J., A Theology of Uncreated Energies, (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:  Marquette University Press, 1978), page 74.

[11]  See 2 Peter 1:4.  See also St. Gregory Palamas, Capita 75 of “The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters,” G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware (Editors), The Philokalia:  The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, (Boston:  Faber and Faber, 1984), 4 Volumes, 4:380.  As Palamas says, “Three realities pertain to God:  essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases.  As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him – as St. Paul said, ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’ (1 Cor. 6: 17) – are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all the theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.  Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.  Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the spirit, according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God . . ." [Capita 75]

[12]  M. Edmund Hussey, The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas, (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Publishing, 1972), page 41.

[13]  Acts 17:28.

[14]  See Jean Cardinal Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy, (Notre Dame, IN:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), page 128.

[15]  Ambrosias Giakalis, Images of the Divine:  The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, (New York:  E. J. Brill, 1994), page 91.  Taken from St. Photius, Epistulae et Amphilochia, Laourdas-Westerink (Editor), Leipzig 1984, vol. 2, 117-119.

[16]  See Kucharek, 228.  As noted before in this paper, “There is a fundamental difference between Byzantines and Westerners in the interpretation of sacred images.  The latter merely regard them as representations of one whose presence is elsewhere, in heaven.  For the Byzantine Christian, the icon is a veritable theophany, a dynamic manifestation of divine energy at work on earth.”

[17]  Kucharek, 209.

Copyright © 2005-2024 Steven Todd Kaster