DOI Artikel:
Dąb-Kalinowska, Barbara: Ikonowa rzeczywistość
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19644#0335
ICON REALITY
SUMMARY
The article concerns mid-forteenth century controversies between Hesychasts and Byzantine humanists, and
their consequences for the theology of the icon and for the cult of icons.
At the bottom of the controversy between the Palamites and the humanists was their understanding of secular
Greek philosophy. They also took separate views on the subject of the cognition of God and the role of reason in this
cognition. Gregorius Palamas considered it insufficient to explain the tenets of faith by reason alone. Although he
did not discount it completely — for it was of service in knowing that which is created — it could not be helpful in the
cognizance od God's essence which is totally inaccessible to man. One cannot after all learn that which is unnatural
by natural means. Palamas believed that the only way to see God and come closer to Him was through
contemplation. For Barlaama and the other humanists God could not be recognized by any except indirect means,
such as the revealed Scriptures, deducing from Creation or, exceptionally, mystical revelation. Barlaama was of the
opinion that the true activity of the human intellect should develop in the secular sciences, between which and
theology there is an uncrossable border. In minimalizing the importance of theology, Barlaama went so far as to
consider it as simply „intellectual wisdom and a discursive science".
The Palamites did not exclude the possibility of a union with the West, but placing the inviolability of Orthodox
belief and the Church itself above the political interests of the state, they pushed for theological disputes first. The
humanists on the other hand treated theological programs as secondary, perceiving the union with the papacy as
a means for including Byzantium in the mainstream of Hellenic civilization, the future of which they saw in the
Renaissance of the West.
Of greatest importance to the hesychasts was the proclamation of their doctrine as official and binding for the
Orthodox Church. The major point on which Palamas and Barlaama differed was the light of Mount Tabor.
Palamas considered it to be the „model of the unchangeable glory of God, a manifestation of Divinity and the very
energy of essential Godliness as well, immanent to all Persons of the Trinity". According to him the light of Tabor is
a revelation of that which was not created in that which is. It is perceived in reality — not allegorically and not
symbolically — only by saints who see it as the ineffable beauty and glory of God. This divine beauty and glory is
shown in the icons, transposed by material, visible means. The adversaries of Palamas considered the light of Tabor
as a natural light, a phenomenon of nature or simply a delusion or figment of the imagination originating from
sensual imagination.
A continuator of the philisophy of Maxim the Confessor, Gregorius Palamas supported and developed the
theory according to which the icon held the same energy as its archetype. In doing this he provided the Orthodox
faithful with new arguments in their controversy with Latin representatives concerning the cult of icons: „refusing to
venerate icons meant a refusal to accept the possibility of divinization, the penetration of energy into Divine nature
and the refusal of this possibility was equivalert to a negation of man's striving for Salvation, a demonstration of
ignorance as to for whom God died". According to Palamas, only man was granted the gift of creation, but this talent
should be exclusively religious in character and man should serve only to express the beauty of God; icons are the
best expression of this. Art cannot be neutral; it can and should be an expression of faith. That Palamas considered
icons as one of the revelations increased their importance and meaning. Accepting the traditional tenets of the
theology of icons, Palamas treated the dogma of Incarnation as the grounds for presenting the effect: Heavenly glory
revealed in the form of God — Logos. This incarnation is not only the decisive justification of Christ's
representation, but it is also the beginning of His earthly life, His real life. It is for this reason that icons should be
characterized by an Evangelical realism. But this realism is not that of the material world, the world of the senses; it
331
SUMMARY
The article concerns mid-forteenth century controversies between Hesychasts and Byzantine humanists, and
their consequences for the theology of the icon and for the cult of icons.
At the bottom of the controversy between the Palamites and the humanists was their understanding of secular
Greek philosophy. They also took separate views on the subject of the cognition of God and the role of reason in this
cognition. Gregorius Palamas considered it insufficient to explain the tenets of faith by reason alone. Although he
did not discount it completely — for it was of service in knowing that which is created — it could not be helpful in the
cognizance od God's essence which is totally inaccessible to man. One cannot after all learn that which is unnatural
by natural means. Palamas believed that the only way to see God and come closer to Him was through
contemplation. For Barlaama and the other humanists God could not be recognized by any except indirect means,
such as the revealed Scriptures, deducing from Creation or, exceptionally, mystical revelation. Barlaama was of the
opinion that the true activity of the human intellect should develop in the secular sciences, between which and
theology there is an uncrossable border. In minimalizing the importance of theology, Barlaama went so far as to
consider it as simply „intellectual wisdom and a discursive science".
The Palamites did not exclude the possibility of a union with the West, but placing the inviolability of Orthodox
belief and the Church itself above the political interests of the state, they pushed for theological disputes first. The
humanists on the other hand treated theological programs as secondary, perceiving the union with the papacy as
a means for including Byzantium in the mainstream of Hellenic civilization, the future of which they saw in the
Renaissance of the West.
Of greatest importance to the hesychasts was the proclamation of their doctrine as official and binding for the
Orthodox Church. The major point on which Palamas and Barlaama differed was the light of Mount Tabor.
Palamas considered it to be the „model of the unchangeable glory of God, a manifestation of Divinity and the very
energy of essential Godliness as well, immanent to all Persons of the Trinity". According to him the light of Tabor is
a revelation of that which was not created in that which is. It is perceived in reality — not allegorically and not
symbolically — only by saints who see it as the ineffable beauty and glory of God. This divine beauty and glory is
shown in the icons, transposed by material, visible means. The adversaries of Palamas considered the light of Tabor
as a natural light, a phenomenon of nature or simply a delusion or figment of the imagination originating from
sensual imagination.
A continuator of the philisophy of Maxim the Confessor, Gregorius Palamas supported and developed the
theory according to which the icon held the same energy as its archetype. In doing this he provided the Orthodox
faithful with new arguments in their controversy with Latin representatives concerning the cult of icons: „refusing to
venerate icons meant a refusal to accept the possibility of divinization, the penetration of energy into Divine nature
and the refusal of this possibility was equivalert to a negation of man's striving for Salvation, a demonstration of
ignorance as to for whom God died". According to Palamas, only man was granted the gift of creation, but this talent
should be exclusively religious in character and man should serve only to express the beauty of God; icons are the
best expression of this. Art cannot be neutral; it can and should be an expression of faith. That Palamas considered
icons as one of the revelations increased their importance and meaning. Accepting the traditional tenets of the
theology of icons, Palamas treated the dogma of Incarnation as the grounds for presenting the effect: Heavenly glory
revealed in the form of God — Logos. This incarnation is not only the decisive justification of Christ's
representation, but it is also the beginning of His earthly life, His real life. It is for this reason that icons should be
characterized by an Evangelical realism. But this realism is not that of the material world, the world of the senses; it
331