The Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church V. The Fifth and Sixth Council and Its Teaching on the Ecclesiastical Image 

Like the image itself, the Church's teaching about it is not a later appendage to Christian teaching, it directly follows from the teaching on salvation and is rooted in the Christian worldview. It is inherent in Christianity from the beginning in its entirety, as well as all other aspects of the Church's teaching. However, as with other aspects of her teaching, the Church revealed and formulated the doctrine of the image gradually, in response to attacks, misunderstandings, and false teachings that arose along her historical path. Here it was the same as, for example, in the teaching about the two natures of Christ, Divine and human. This truth was more concrete, directly experienced by the first Christians than theoretically formulated. The dogmatic teaching about it was established by the Church in response to heresies and false teachings. The same was true of the doctrine of the image. For the first time, a fundamental indication concerning the nature of the sacred image was formulated by the Fifth and Sixth (Trullo) Councils in response to practical necessity. The canons of this Council concerning art are not a "concession to the faithful," as some representatives of modern science think. Moreover, it cannot be said that they relate only to one subject [1]. As we shall see, it is precisely the attitude to the image of the Holy Fathers of previous times, that is, the very Tradition of the Church, that finds its conciliar expression here.

The Fifth and Sixth Council opened on September 1, 692. It owes its name to the fact that it supplemented the two Ecumenical Councils that preceded it: the Fifth (553) and the Sixth (681), both of which took place in Constantinople. Like the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Fifth and Sixth took place in the hall (in Trullo) of the imperial palace. Hence its name - "Trullo". The Fifth Council, which condemned Monophysitism and Origenism, and the Sixth, which condemned Monothelitism, dealt only with dogmatic questions. A number of canonical questions of the disciplinary order were waiting to be resolved. For this purpose, the Fifth and Sixth Councils were convened, which is usually called simply the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The issues resolved at it concerned various aspects of church life, which required regulation, including church art. "In the ripe wheat of truth are mingled some remnants of pagan and Jewish immaturity." These words from the Epistle of the Fathers of the Council to the Emperor Justinian II have, as we shall see, a direct bearing on our subject.

The three canons of the Fifth and Sixth Council concern images. Canon 73 applies to the depiction of the Holy Cross. It reads: "Since the Life-Creating Cross has shown us salvation, it behooves us to use all diligence, so that due honor may be given to him through which we have been saved from the ancient Fall. Wherefore, in thought, in word, and in feeling, we offer reverence to him, commanding that the images of the Cross, which some have drawn on the ground, be completely blotted out, so that the sign of our victory may not be offended by the trampling of those who walk. And so from now on those who inscribe the image of the Cross on the earth we command to be excommunicated" [2]. This simple prescription is clear in itself and does not require explanation: the image of the Cross cannot be made where it can be trampled underfoot.

Rule 82 is the most important for us. Its significance is great because, as we shall see, it reveals the content of the sacred image as the Church understands it. The text of this canon is as follows: "In some images there is a lamb proved by the finger of the Forerunner, who is taken as an image of grace, showing us through the law the true Lamb, Christ our God. Reverencing ancient images and shadows as signs and foreshadows of the truth handed down to the Church, we prefer grace and truth, accepting it as the fulfillment of the law. For this reason, so that in the images the eyes of all may be presented with the perfect, we command that from now on, instead of the old lamb, the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, Christ our God, be represented in human form, so that through humiliation we may see the height of God the Word and be brought to the remembrance of His life in the flesh, His suffering and saving death" [3].

The first phrase of the canon indicates the situation that existed at that time. She speaks of icons where St. John the Baptist, depicted in his human form, points with his finger at Christ, Who is depicted symbolically, in the form of a lamb. Realistic images of Christ, His portraits, existed from the beginning, and it is these authentic portraits that are the real proof of His incarnation. In addition, there were extensive cycles of paintings on Old and New Testament themes, in particular, depictions of most of our Twelve Great Feasts, where Christ was also depicted in His human form. And yet, along with this, as Canon 82 shows, the Old Testament symbols were still in use, replacing His human image. It was a lingering attachment to biblical types, and in particular to the image of the lamb, which was apparently used especially in the West [4]. Therefore, it was necessary to direct the faithful to the path accepted by the Church. This is what rule 82 does.

As we know, the Old Testament symbol of the lamb played a very important role in pre-Christian art. In the Old Testament, the slaughter of the Paschal lamb was the center of the entire liturgical life of the people of Israel, just as in the New Testament the Eucharistic sacrifice is the heart of the entire life of the Church, and Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, is the center of the liturgical year. The Old Testament lamb without blemish not only simply prefigured Christ, but was His most basic transfiguration. In the first centuries, when by necessity it was often refrained from the direct image of Christ due to the created conditions, the symbol of the lamb was very common. Like the fish, the lamb meant not only the Savior Himself, but also the Christian in general.

The image of which the Fifth and Sixth Council speaks is based on the text of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John. The Evangelist here conveys the testimony of John the Baptist about the appearance of Christ. To the question of the priests and Levites, who was he – Elijah, or a prophet? The Forerunner, who was indeed the last of the Old Testament prophets, replied that he was precisely the Forerunner of the One Who was already coming directly after him. And the next day Christ appeared before the people, going to John to be baptized; The Forerunner, pointing at Him with his finger, says: "Behold the Lamb of God, take away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The image literally reproduced the words of the Baptist, imprinting them in memory. Canon 82, which abolishes this symbol, comes from the same text of the Gospel of John, but does not consider it separately, but in the context of the entire part of the chapter of the Gospel relating to it, and the emphasis is not on the words of the Forerunner, but on the one to whom it points, Christ Himself. The description of Christ's appearance in the Gospel of John is preceded by a whole preparatory text: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us; and we have seen His glory, the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth [...]. And from the fulfillment of Him we have all received grace: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were Jesus Christ" (Chapter 1, verses 16-17). Since it was the truth that appeared as Jesus Christ, it was no longer necessary to translate it into the image of the word, but to show in the image this Truth itself, the fulfillment of the words.

It was this fulfillment, this reality, the Truth that had to be shown to the eyes of all. Consequently, the Truth is revealed not only in word, but also in image; it is shown. This is the complete and complete rejection of all abstraction, of all metaphysical understanding of religion. Truth has its own image, for it is not an idea, not an abstract formula: it is a concrete, living Person, crucified "under Pontius Pilate." When Pilate asked the Savior the question, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), he did not wait for an answer and went out, knowing that there could be many answers to his question, none of which would be valid. The answer to his question lies only in the Church; it was in the apostolic circle that the Savior revealed to His disciples: "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). The truth answers the question not WHAT, but WHO. She is a Person, She is depictable, so the Church not only speaks of the truth, but also shows the Truth, the image of Jesus Christ.

The Fathers of the Council continue: "... Accepting ancient images and canopies as signs and transfigurations, we prefer grace and truth, accepting them as the fulfillment of the law." Thus, the Fathers of the Council speak of the ancient symbols as a stage already passed in the life of the Church. And if at first only the lamb is mentioned, then here the Council passes on to "ancient images and canopies", apparently considering the symbol of the lamb not just among others, but as the main symbol, the revelation of which entails the disclosure of all other symbolic subjects.

Since the Word became flesh and lived among us, the image must show not symbolically, but directly what appeared on earth in time, what became accessible to vision, description, and image.

Thus, the reason for the abolition of ancient symbols is the existence of a direct image, in relation to which these symbols are remnants of "Jewish immaturity." While the wheat was unripe, their existence was necessary as they contributed to its ripening. In the "ripe wheat of truth" their role ceased to be a building role; it even became negative, because symbols reduced the meaning of the direct image and damaged its role. If a direct image can be replaced by a symbol, it ceases to have the unconditional meaning that it should have.

Following the assertion of the necessity of a direct image, the next part of the 82nd canon gives a dogmatic justification of this image, and this is precisely the main meaning of this canon. This first conciliar expression of the Christological basis of the icon was later widely used and refined by the defenders of icons in the period of iconoclasm.