In a recent discussion about the tradition of placing metal cladding around some icons, it was suggested that one purpose of the cladding was to convey a theological message. It performed the function of veiling of outward appearances in order to reveal an inner, or invisible, holiness. This point is worth further discussion I think.
My understanding of this principle is not sophisticated (and so may by flawed or incomplete) but nevertheless here it is: that in order emphasise the point that there is an invisible reality to whatever is seen, some of the visible elements are veiled in order to emphasise and so to reveal to us this inner reality. This is true for all veiling – human veils, humeral veils, chalice veils and so on. How does this work?
First veiling is not hiding. When veiled the form beneath may not be visible directly, but it is still perceptible albeit in a less distinct form. We know what is veiled. For example, the form of a person is still discernable when clothes are worn. The form of the chalice is still recognizable even when veiled, as much by how it is handled as by the outer form. It relies on our knowledge of what is beneath it. If we did not know what a woman is, or a chalice is, we would not have a sense of a chalice veiled, but rather of an object in which the fabric we see represents the surface of it and is intrinsic to it.
When we recognize a veiled object it makes the point that there is an inner reality that is not directly visible. So the veil is visible, but beyond it is the chalice, perceptible but invisible. In grasping this reality, it makes the point to us that the object itself, even when unveiled, has essential elements that are both visible and invisible. When unveiled, we can be so absorbed with the visible elements that perhaps we fail to grasp fully the invisible realities. So the partial hiding of the visible elements allows us to focus on the invisible.
In order for this to have any force at all, there must be invisible realities present in the object veiled. The human person is both body and soul; the body is visible, the soul is not. The chalice contains the wine in which after consecration Christ will be truly present, despite outward appearances.
Now to icons: if we apply the same argument, in order for the cladding on an icon to play the part of veiling, the icon must contain essential elements that are invisible and worthy of veneration. In point of fact the icon does not. Therefore, the cladding does not play the part of a veil.
Icon is an image worthy of veneration only to the degree that it is visible. The relationship to the person depicted is set up through the imagination of the viewer and by virtue of what is seen. In this sense the cladding becomes the icon and that part that is hidden ceases to be so. In this we follow the theology of Theodore the Studite, the Eastern Father who settled the iconoclastic controversy in the 9th century. “Theodore quotes a custom already mentioned by Leontius of Neapolis and by Patriarch Germanus: once an icon is worn and has lost its imprint’ (charakter), it will without hesitation be thrown into the fire “like any useless piece of wood’. If the icon as such were a grace-filled object, nobody would dare burn it. It would in itself be some kind of sacred relic. Different from John Damascene, who positions icons and relics on the same level, Theodore the Studite sees the sacredness of the icon entirely in its character, its portraying depiction.’ ”(p226, Christophe Schonborn, God’s Human Face pub. Ignatius)
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I have always found cladding disturbing. Thanks for the clear explanation.
The word “reveal” means literally “to veil again.” A revealing is a re-veiling. There is a secret (“mystikos”) reality that is made visible by the veil. The eternal power and Godhead are there to be seen in the things God has made (Rom 1:20); the veil of nature makes them visible. I think that John Damascene was thinking of the painted surface of an icon as itself a veil, and I think he too would have disapproved of cladding.
Burning is the customary way of disposing of the blessed sacrament in the Orthodox Church if it cannot be consumed. So it does not follow that simply because an object is grace filled, no one would dare burn it.
Is the Blessed Sacrament viewed in the same way as the Catholic Church by the Eastern Church? I am not absolutely precise about this in my mind, and I know that Christ is really present in the bread. However, it seems that for the East there is some sort of difference. I have recollections of the bread being offered to all present after the liturgy finished, even to those whom they would not consider to be in the appropriate state of grace to have received Christ during the liturgy. This suggests to me that He is not seen as present in the same way afterwards.
The bread which is distributed after the liturgy in the Orthodox Church is the “antidoron,” that which is distributed “in place of the gift.” It is not to be confused with the Blessed Sacrament. In Catholic terms it could be called a “sacramental” and not a sacrament. It is distributed for the benefit of those who cannot receive holy communion. The Orthodox believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, although they do not use the word “transubstantiation” because they do not submit the mystery to Aristotelian categories. They also do not have exposition or benediction because they think of the Eucharistic Bread as to be eaten and not looked at.
I agree with what you say on this. I wonder though: could it not be argued that the veiling of an icon is simply done after its own kind? That is to say, as an artistic-theological extension of what is represented in the image and of how it is represented? Sort of in the same way they call The Mandylion “not painted by human hands”. After all, the metal is worked to be decorative and is pretty well permanently attached to the icon, rather than having the icon permanently “repose” under an actual mantle or cloth. One could say the veiled icon *is* the icon, and not an icon that is veiled.
I don’t write the above because I’m attached in any way to veiled icons; I’m just wondering. Though it may sound like I’m just trying to be “nuanced”, I think there may be a case for it.
I think that this is exactly the point Paul. But then of course, the icon is no longer veiled, but as you say, it has become the icon.
If we return to the source words for the English “reveal” we se that the Latin word revelare means “to draw back the veil” (re = back and velum = veil). So, to reveal something means to make known something hidden or kept secret.
As an ordained deacon, when I remove the burse (which contains the linen corporal on which the priest consecrates the Holy Eucharist and Precious Blood; it is called corporal because it comes from the Latin word “corpus” which means body – since the Body of Christ rests upon it), what is left is the Veiled Chalice, Paten (on which the Host rests), the Pall (which covers the Host), and the Purificator (the linen cloth used by the priest and deacon to wipe their lips after they consume the Precious Blood).
The Chalice Veil is a silken cloth with a cross upon the front of it which veils the Chalice and all of the above until the time of the Offertory. During the Offertory the deacon or priest removes the veil to expose the Chalice in which is poured the wine and a drop of water. I would then hand the Paten on which the Eucharistic wafer rests and the Chalice, which contains the wine and water, to the priest for the conclusion of the Offertory prayers and the beginning of the Eucharistic prayers and consecration.
The point of my mentioning this is that the Chalice Veil serves as a visual means of notifying the deacon, priest, and most importantly, the congregation that the Sacred Mystery of the Transubstantiation is about to begin. It is a moment in which we remember that God, Who had remained hidden for so many centuries, is now, through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, made real to us – the veil has been drawn back – in fact, the Temple Veil has been torn down the middle – so that His presence is again made known to us through the Holy Mystery of the Eucharistic Presence, and because of the incredible love of God for us – He allows us to participate in His life by consuming His Body and Blood.
Unfortunately, this action when done by a deacon or a priest can be completed so quickly that its importance and significance is lost – especially to an unchurched, uncatechized generation.
So, as it applies to the veiling of icons, if the Orthodox believe that the icon is a source of grace – as we Romans would say – a sacramental – then the veiling of it may be similar to the veiling of the Chalice, Paten, Corporal, Host, and Pall in that it serves the purpose of notifying the viewer, that is, the person in prayer, that this is a sacred instrument and that it is not to be viewed as just another picture, but that there are mysteries here that you have to take the time to see, and process, pray through, and experience in order to understand the Holy Person that it represents.
As Archimandrite Zinon would say – “the holy icon does not depict – it reveals.” The Chalice Veil, and the Icon Veil, both serve to inform the person in and of prayer that there should be a “visual and personal stop” – in other words, let us slow down our minds and our hearts, and be willing to experience, once the veil has been removed, the truth, goodness, and beauty that these sacred objects contain and present to us.
Thank you very much for this. Very informative and helpful, and many insights that I hadn’t thought of. Just to make the points as I see it: from the way you have written this (I don’t know if this is your intention) that it could be interpreted that Catholics do not think that the icon (or any other sacred image) is sacramental. Of course, the Catholic understanding is that an image that corresponds to the criteria of Theodore the Studite in the 9th century (capturing the charateristics of the person, and having the name) acts as other sacramentals. However, in order for this to be operative, the image has to be seen, if it is hidden, this sacramental action does not take place. This is in distinction to a sacrament, such as the blood of Christ in the chalice. A temporary veiling of the icon would perhaps transmit this message, and the icon would have its sacramental properties once the veiling was removed. However, a permanent veiling (which most cladding in my experience is) negates the sacramental properties of the icon beneath to the degree thatthe icon is hidden.