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.

The Orthodox Church, on the contrary, has constantly refined in the direction indicated by the Fifth and Sixth Councils its art, both in its content and in its form, creating art that conveys in the images of the material world the Revelation of the Divine world, giving us a kind of key, a certain way of approaching the heavenly world, of contemplating it, of understanding it.

Whatever the direction that Western Orthodox art will take in the future, it will not be able to do without the basic guidance first formulated in this canon: historical realism, combined with the realism of Divine Revelation, expressed through certain forms corresponding to the spiritual experience of the Church.

[1] See: A. Grabar, Byzantine Iconoclasm. Paris, 1957, p. 79 (in French).

[2] The Rules of the Orthodox Church with the Interpretations of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria. St. Petersburg, 1911, vol. 1.

[3] Ibid.

[4] "Not a single Byzantine image of the lamb indicated by the finger of the Forerunner has come down to us," writes N. Pokrovsky (Monuments of Christian Iconography and Art, St. Petersburg, 1900, 29)