"Протоиерей Иоанн Мейендорф. Byzantine Theology " - читать интересную книгу автора

divinity. In the first case, he is a Nestorian; in the second, he assumes
that divinity is circumscribed by humanity, which is absurd; or both are
confused, in which case, he is a Monophysite.3
These arguments did not lack strength and must have impressed his
contemporaries, but they failed to account for the Chalcedonian affirmation
that "each nature preserved its own manner of being." Obviously, even if
they formally rejected Monophysitism, the iconoclasts supposed that the
deification of Christ's humanity suppressed its properly human individual
character. They also seem to have ignored the true meaning of the hypostatic
union, which implies a real distinction between nature and hypostasis. In
being assumed by the hypostasis of the Logos, human nature does not merge
with divinity; it retains its full identity.
Another aspect of the iconoclasts' position was their notion of the
image, which they always considered identical or "consubstantial" with the
prototype. The consequence of this approach was that a material image could
never achieve this identity and was always inadequate. The only true "image"
of Christ, which they would admit, is the sacramental one of the Eucharist
as the "image" and "symbol" of Christ - a notion, which was drawn from
pseudo-Dionysius.4

Orthodox Theology of Images: John of Damascus and the Seventh Council.

Some discussion about images must have taken place in Byzantium as
early as the late-seventh century and was reflected in Canon 82 of the
Council in Trullo. The importance of this text lies in the fact that it
locates the issue of religious representation in the Christological context:

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the precursor is pictured
indicating the lamb with his ringer. This representation was adopted as a
symbol of grace. It is a hidden figure of that true lamb who is Christ, our
God, and shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these
ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the
Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves as a fulfilment of this
law. Therefore, in order to expose to the sight of all, at least with the
help of painting, which is perfect, we decree that henceforth Christ our God
must be represented in His human form but not in the form of the ancient
lamb.5

Thus, the image of Christ already implied for the fathers of the
Council in Trullo a confession of faith in the historical Incarnation, which
could not be properly expressed in the symbolic figure of a lamb and needed
an image of Jesus "in His human form."
Before Leo HI had issued his formal decrees against the images,
Germanus I (715-730), the Patriarch of Constantinople, used the same
Christological argument against the incipient iconoclasm of the court:

In eternal memory of the life in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, of
His passion, His saving death, and the redemption of the world, which
results from them, we have received the tradition of representing Him in His
human form - i.e., in His visible Theophany -, understanding that we exalt