Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944), a luminary of twentieth-century theology, was a Russian Orthodox priest, public intellectual, and ecumenist. Roberto J. De La Noval teaches theology at the University of Notre Dame. In addition to translating Russian religious texts, he writes on theology and culture for journals of public thought.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Icons and the Name of God

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Contents

Translator's Introduction.............................................................................................viiThe Icon and Its Veneration (A Dogmatic Essay)........................................................................11. The History of the Dogma of Icon Veneration........................................................................12. Antinomy of the Icon...............................................................................................253. Art and Icon.......................................................................................................404. The Divine Proto-Image.............................................................................................505. The Content and Limits of the Icon.................................................................................656. The Sanctification of Icons and the Significance of Such Sanctification............................................777. The Veneration of Icons............................................................................................838. Different Types of Icons...........................................................................................93The Name of God.......................................................................................................115Post Scriptum to "The Name of God": A Sophiological Interpretation of the Dogma of the Name Jesus.....................167Index.................................................................................................................178

Chapter One

1. The History of the Dogma of Icon Veneration

The veneration of icons was legitimized in the Church by the decree accepted in the seventh act of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In this decree, having confirmed the doctrine of the six earlier ecumenical Councils, the fathers proclaim: "We preserve as unalterable all the traditions of the Church, whether written or unwritten. One of these traditions prescribes the making of painted icon images, since this is in conformity with the history of Gospel preaching and serves to confirm that Christ was made man truly, not illusorily, as well as serving for our benefit. On this basis ... we decree that holy and precious icons be offered (for veneration) in precisely the same manner as the image of the Holy Life-giving Cross, whether they be made of paints, of mosaics, or of some other material, as long as they are made appropriately, whether they be found in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels, on walls and on boards, or in homes and on roads, and also whether these be the icons of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Mistress the Holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and all the saints and righteous men. The more frequently with the aid of icons they are the objects of our contemplation, the more those who gaze upon these icons will be motivated to remember the prototypes themselves, the more love they will acquire for them and the more they will be motivated to kiss them, to offer them reverence and veneration, but not at all to offer them that true service, latreia, which, according to our faith, can appropriately be offered only to the Divine nature.... The honor bestowed upon the icon refers to its proto-image, and he who venerates the icon venerates the hypostasis portrayed on it."

As we see from the text of this decree, it does not contain any dogmatic definition of icons or any dogmatic justification for their veneration; it only legitimizes the use of holy icons and establishes the form of their veneration (reverence and veneration — timetike proskunesis, but not service, latreia). In conformity with this, there is no dogmatic definition in the oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: it is enforced not by anathematisms but only by ecclesiastical disciplinary punishments (removal of bishops and clergy, and excommunication of laity and monks). It is true that, later, at this same Council, along with other general and personal anathematisms, an anathema is pronounced against those who do not accept holy icons. However, this only belongs to the ritual of the Council; it was not introduced, and even could not be introduced, into the decree itself because it lacked dogmatic content. Thus, it is necessary to establish first of all that the Seventh Ecumenical Council gave us only the canon of icon veneration, not the dogma of what the icon represents as a fact of dogmatic significance. This absence of dogma was also connected with the general character of the Council, which tended to be "economic" rather than dogmatic. Moreover, the Council was extremely short-lasting and hurried (which is explained by the historical circumstances surrounding it). It lasted only about a month and consisted only of eight sessions (of which only two, sessions 6 and 7, were devoted specifically to the essence of the matter, and even here it was a question not of discussion but of the presentation of a single report, probably given by Patriarch Tarasios himself, in the form of a critique of the theses of iconoclasm). Thus, it can be said that, although the Church legitimized icon veneration, it did not present a dogma of it; and the question of the dogmatic meaning of icon veneration still remains an object of theological discussion. Of course, in this connection we have the whole history, extending over many centuries, of the dogmatic struggle for and against icon veneration, even if this struggle has not yielded indisputable dogmatic results. There exists a whole series of patristic writings devoted to this question and demanding respectful and serious discussion. These writings must of course be taken into account in any dogmatic investigation of the question.

We must first examine the history of icon veneration (of course, within the limits set by our task of dogmatic investigation). In this history we first of all encounter the fundamental fact that the icon first appears in paganism. The entire paganworld is full of icons and icon veneration. This is sufficiently attested by the monumental temple-building and sculpture of the East and of Egypt, by the irresistibly beautiful art of ancient Greece, and by the prosaically imitative art of ancient Rome. Paganism was full of representational art, and Israel, during all the epochs of its existence, was surrounded by its own religious art. However, Israel's art was essentially pagan, for it originated in the worship of false gods. Therefore, Israel's icons were idols; that is, they were the icons of false gods and in this sense they were false icons; or they were simply fetishes in which was obliterated the very distinction between the image and that which was imaged, between image and proto-image, between icon and deity; and for this reason latreia, worship appropriate to deities, was proffered to them. Both forms of the pagan veneration of icons equally made men stray from the service of the true God and therefore constituted a religious temptation, which was the more dangerous, the more enchanting were its artistic images. Israel was besieged by this temptation, and continually gave in to it, according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, historical and prophetic. In this sense, according to its religious coefficient pagan idolatry was an abomination before the Lord, a spiritual debauchery that was often combined with a bodily debauchery. Judaism's attitude toward...