But if we limit ourselves to depicting the Savior only as an ordinary person, as, for example, a photograph or a secular portrait does, then such an image will remind only of His life, sufferings and death. However, the content of the church image cannot be limited to this, because the depicted person is different from other people. He is not just a man, but a God-Man. And the image should remind us not only of His life, but should also point to His glory, "the height of God the Word." Consequently, the depiction of one historical fact is not enough for an image to be an icon. By means accessible to the visual arts, the image must show us that the Depicted One is "the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, Christ our God." If the historical features of Jesus Christ, His portrait, are evidence of His coming in the flesh, of His humiliation, then the very manner of depicting this "Son of Man" should reflect the glory of God. In other words, the humiliation of God the Word is shown in such a way that, when we look at Him, we see and contemplate in His "servant's eye" His divine glory – the human image of God the Word, and through this we know what is the salvation of His death and the "resulting redemption of the world".

The last part of Canon 82 shows what the symbolism of church art should consist of: it should not be in the subject itself, not in what is depicted, but in the way this subject is depicted, in the manner of depiction. Thus, the teaching of the Church is expressed not only in the plot, but also in the way this plot is conveyed. In the field of her art, the Church develops an artistic language that corresponds to her experience and her knowledge of Divine Revelation. All the possibilities possessed by the visual arts are directed towards one goal: to faithfully convey a concrete historical image and in it to reveal another reality, a spiritual and prophetic reality.

So, on the one hand, the Fifth and Sixth Councils demand that the symbol be replaced in a direct, concrete way. And indeed, it is impossible to refute the Christological heresy by the image of a fish or a lamb. A few years later, St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in a letter to the iconoclastic bishop Thomas, says: "The depiction of the image of the Lord on icons, according to His human appearance, serves to shame the heretics, who assert that He became incarnate only illusory, and not real" [5].

On the other hand, Canon 82 is the first expression of the Church's teaching on the icon and at the same time indicates the possibility of conveying by means of art, with the help of certain symbolism, a reflection of Divine glory.

Symbols, "images and shadows," are considered by it not to express the fullness of grace, although they are worthy of veneration and correspond to the needs of a certain epoch. Iconographic symbolism is not completely excluded, but passes into the background. Even now we use some similar symbols, such as the three stars on the maphorion of the Mother of God, to indicate Her virginity before, during and after the Nativity of Christ. Or we depict a blessing hand in the heavens to show the presence of God. But this symbolism occupies its proper secondary place and does not replace the personal image.

Canon 82 lays the foundation for what we call the iconographic canon, that is, the well-known criterion of the liturgical nature of an image, just as in the field of the verbal canon determines the liturgical nature of a particular text. The iconographic canon is a well-known principle that makes it possible to judge whether a given image is an icon or not. He establishes the correspondence of the icon to the Holy Scriptures and determines what this correspondence consists in, that is, the authenticity of the transmission of Divine Revelation in historical reality in the way that we call symbolic realism.

If Canon 82 is directed primarily against "Jewish immaturity," Canon 100 refers to "Gentile immaturity." Its text is as follows: "Let thy eyes see righteously, and guard thy heart with all guarding (Prov. 4:25), commands Wisdom: for the bodily senses conveniently bring their impressions into the soul. Wherefore we do not permit from now on, by any means whatsoever, images on the decks, which charm the eye, corrupt the mind, and produce the ignition of impure pleasures, to be inscribed in any way whatsoever. And if anyone does this, let him be excommunicated" [6]. It is difficult to suppose that the Church used images that produce "the ignition of impure pleasures." But the fact is that at the time of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, along with church feasts, there still existed pagan festivals, which were forbidden by its 62nd canon, in particular, Brumalia (celebrations in honor of Bacchus), dances in honor of the Hellenic gods, etc. The Church considered it necessary to protect its members from the corrupting influence of such works, especially since some elements of this art could penetrate into church art. Canon 100 shows that the Church demands from its members a certain asceticism not only in life, but also in art, which, on the one hand, reflects this life, and on the other hand, influences it. This concern for the moral side of art outside the Church indicates a very special significance of this aspect in relation to church art proper. This canon reflects the basic principle which, as we shall see, runs like a red thread through all the writings of the Holy Fathers and through all church art.

The Fifth and Sixth Council marked the end of the dogmatic struggle of the Church for the correct confession of the two natures, Divine and human, in the Person of Jesus Christ. This was the time when "piety is already clearly preached by us," as it is said in Canon 1 of this Council. The Fathers and Councils of this Christological period found precise and clear dogmatic definitions in order to express, insofar as the human word is able to do so, the Church's teaching on the Incarnation. The truth was clearly and publicly proclaimed. However, this was not enough. For a long time it was necessary to defend this truth against those who did not accept it, despite all the clarity of the conciliar and patristic definitions. It was necessary not only to tell the truth, but also to show it, that is, in the field of fine arts to express a strict and precise Orthodox confession.

With Canon 82 of the Fifth and Sixth Council, the Church responds to the contemporary attacks of the Jews on the Christian image, and with Canon 100 she removes traces of Hellenistic art. In response to the needs of the time, she gives a definite directive: in the image it is necessary to show "the glory of the Godhead, which also becomes the glory of the body," as St. John of Damascus said a little later [7]. In an era whose central question was Christology, it was the human image of Christ, the basis of all Christian iconography, that demanded a dogmatic formulation that eliminated "Jewish and pagan immaturity."

The decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Council were signed by the emperor, and after his name a place was left for the signature of the Pope of Rome. Then came the signatures of the Patriarchs of Constantinople (Paul), Alexandria (Peter), Jerusalem (Anastasios) and Antioch (George), followed by the signatures of 213 bishops or their representatives. Among others was the signature of Basil, Archbishop of Gortyn (in Crete), who had the authority of the Roman Church to sign the decrees of the Council, and there were signatures of other Western bishops [8].

Immediately after the conclusion of the Council, his deeds were sent to Rome to Pope Sergius for signing. However, the pope refused to sign them, even refusing the copy of the Council's acts intended for him. He declared the decrees of the Council null and void and declared that he would prefer death to assent to error. This "error" was evidently the Council's definitions concerning doctrine and ecclesiastical practice, in which there were discrepancies between the whole Church, on the one hand, and Rome, on the other, such as the obligatory celibacy of the clergy, the fasting on Saturday, already forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council, the depiction of the Savior in the form of a lamb, and others. However, the Church of Rome recognizes the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which refers to Canon 82 of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. Therefore, it can be said that it is implied that it recognizes this rule as well. Pope St. Gregory II refers to it in his epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Germanus [9].

Pope John VIII, speaking of the decisions of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, has nothing to do with them. Later, Pope Innocent III, citing Canon 82, calls it the decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But all this, however, was not a conscious, principled recognition, but only the consent of some individual popes, while other popes took the opposite position. One way or another, in fact the West did not accept the decisions of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

In this way, the Church of Rome remained aloof from the formulation of the Church's teaching on the Christological basis of the sacred image. For this reason, this teaching has not been able to enrich Western sacred art, which to this day remains faithful to certain purely symbolic images, in particular, of the Saviour in the form of a lamb.

The West remained on the sidelines of this process.