Image and Icon - 4: The Harrowing of Hell and Resurrection From Various Sources

“This iconographic type represents the Lord in Hades surrounded by a radiant glory; He is trampling upon the demolished gates of Hell and bears in His left hand the Cross of the Resurrection, while with His right hand He raises from a sarcophagus Adam, who represents the human race.”[7]

“We have received Her [the Holy Church of God] from the Holy Fathers thus adorned, as the Divine Scriptures also teach us: to wit, with the Incarnate OEconomy of Christ,… the Annunciation of Gabriel to the Virgin, etc., the Nativity, etc….; and likewise, the Crucifixion, etc… ; the Resurrection, which is the joy of the world—how Christ tramples on Hades and raises up Adam.”[8]

“The Church decided to regard the Descent into Hades as a true Icon of the Resurrection…. The quintessential Icon of the Resurrection of Christ is considered to be His Descent into Hades… To be sure, there are also Icons of the Resurrection which depict Christ’s appearance to the Myrrh-bearing women and the Disciples, but the Icon of the Resurrection par excellence is the shattering of death, which took place at the Descent of Christ into Hades, when His soul, together with His Divinity, went down into Hades and freed the souls of the Righteous ones of the Old Testament, who were awaiting Him as their Redeemer.”[9]

“The Lord is represented holding a banner of victory as He is raised in the air as if by a vigorous jump from a sarcophagus tomb, whose slate covering is raised by an angel, obviously to permit Him to exit, while the guards are shown fallen upon the ground’; 

‘[T]he Western type showing Christ jumping out of the grave was imposed upon Orthodox iconography during the Turkish domination (especially from the 17th century) through the influence of the West. It became practically the prevalent Icon of the Resurrection, when in essence it is a type not only untraditional but unorthodox.”[10]

“The unfathomable character of this event for the human mind, and the consequent impossibility of depicting it, is the reason for the absence, in traditional Orthodox iconography, [of any depiction] of the actual moment of the Resurrection.”[17]

“Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.”

Now that we celebrating this great feast my curiosity is tingling once again. This time, however, I was able to locate an interesting report issued by the Chancery of the Holy Synod in Resistance titled, “The Holy Icon of the Resurrection.”

The report begins aptly with a definition of what an icon is, or, what the purpose of the icon is which represents:

“depictional theology….[that is, it] does not confine the meaning of the events to their historical place or the temporal instant at which they occurred, but transcends these factors in order to teach us a dogmatic truth, to wit, their real meaning.
Thus, with regard, for example, to the architecture in an Icon, the building (or the landscape: the cave in the Icon of the Nativity… and also in the Icon of the Resurrection) indicates the place in which the event occurs, but never encloses the scene; it only acts as a background, so that the event does not occur in the building, but in front of it.”

 

The report then makes note of the period of “theological decadence” in the Orthodox East which resulted in a gradual loss of the true understanding of the language of the icon and, simultaneously, the influence of Western forms of thought and art.

 

“An immediate consequence of this loss was the prevalence of (at times unbridled) imagination and an effort to adhere to the historical place or the temporal moment of the events in question, which were henceforth presented in a completely naturalistic manner (and moreover, inside buildings or within landscapes), entirely stripped of their deeper theological essence – their iconographic meaning.”

 

This “Latin type” ultimately effected even the depiction of the Resurrection icon. Namely, the Latin type was “created in the eleventh century in the West and became familiar through Giotto (see here)….”. Although it can vary, the icon shows:

 

“The Lord … presented holding a banner of victory as He is raised in the air as if by a vigorous jump from a sarcophagus tomb, whose slate covering is raised by an angel, obviously to permit Him to exit, while the guards are shown fallen upon the ground; The Western type showing Christ jumping out of the grave was imposed upon Orthodox iconography during the Turkish domination…through the influence of the West. It became practically the prevalent Icon of the Resurrection, when in essence it is a type not only untraditional but unorthodox.”

The words written in black are those of Father Milovan Katanic, the author of the blog.   Those in yellow are from the Holy Synod.   The profound truth they give us is the practice and meaning of the traditional Resurrection icon and their intention to keep that tradition pure.   The xenophobia is found in the language they use to express this and their prejudice that anything that differs from Byzantine tradition is heterodox and wrong.   In other words, Western tradition is only correct in so far as it is identical to Byzantine Tradition.

A few words to restore the balance damaged by xenophobia.   Firstly, at the time of theological decadence, the Orthodox Church was no less Orthodox than it is today.   As one good and holy Orthodox priest told me, the Holy Spirit is always with the Church, not more one generation than another.   The Church is ALWAYS one, holy, catholic and apostolic.   Hence, the lack of a grasp of the true

Orthodox tradition of icons, while being sad and calling for correction and improvement, is not so central as to accuse those using it of being unOrthodox.   Who are we to judge?   If that is true of Orthodox, it is also true of Catholics: whatever the reason for accusing Catholics of heresy, this can’t be one of them.  In fact, popular taste among Orthodox often favours sentimentality over doctrinal rigour, just like Catholics.

 The language also shows xenophobia.   The report writes, “The Western type showing Christ jumping out of the grave was imposed upon Orthodox iconography during the Turkish domination…through the influence of the West.”

Who imposed it?   The Turks who were from Islam?   Was there a secret deal between the Vatican and the Turks by which western patterns of art were imposed especially to corrupt Orthodoxy?   These suggestions are entirely fanciful, and I am sure the Report did not mean that.   Was it not a fact that western patterns of sacred art were adopted in the East because there were Orthodox people who actually liked them and found them helpful?   That being the case, why talk of “imposition”?

Moreover, St Seraphim of Sarov clearly preferred to pray before a Western type Madonna rather than a Byzantine one; but no one has suggested that he is any less Orthodox for that!!  

The problem often is that Orthodox who go Catholic bashing compare an abstractly correct theological vision of Orthodoxy with Catholicism as it is or was in concrete practice.   If they were to compare the way Catholics actually live their Catholic lives with how Orthodox actually live their lives, a different picture would emerge!  If they did, they might actually get to like us, and that would never do!!  

Nevertheless, the Report has a valid point.   There is a marvellous Byzantine tradition of icons with close ties to the Liturgy and is a valid expression of Catholic/Orthodox Tradition.   It is of great importance that this tradition of icons should be transmitted without contamination and that it should continue to flourish; and every effort should be made to ensure that this happens.   This is important, not only for the Orthodox East, but also it ia a service to the Catholic West because, although it is an eastern tradition and not a western one, we in the West find nothing in it foreign to our faith, and the use of icons is spreading in the West, to our greater enrichment.  This website is only a tiny example, and, as we shall see in the post on “Western Icons”, icons can hold us together, even before we are ready to share in the same Eucharist.

A COMMENTARY ON AN  ICON

my source: Orthodox – Reformed Bridge

When You, the Redeemer of all, were placed in a new Tomb for us all, Hades, the respecter of none, crouched when he saw You.  The bars were broken, the gates were shattered, the graves were opened, and the dead arose.  Then Adam, gratefully rejoicing, cried out to You: “Glory to Your condescension, O Merciful God.”