Sens orzeczenia dogmatycznego dekretu „Horos” uchwalonego na II soborze nicejskim (787)

Abstract

This article mainly deals with the comparison of three texts which cause to be independently of each other and are all translations (into Polish) of a dogmatic decree from the Niceanum II council of 787. This decree is called “Horos”. The illustration within the article is an analysis of each of these translations (into Polish): A – the Jesuit translation (2000). B – the Paulinian translation (1993). C – the article’s author’s translation (2003). The Bishops begin the 13th sentence of “Horos” with: Καί συνελόντες φαμὲν, the end of the 16th century this was translated into Latin as: Et ut compendiose fateamur (In short, we declare) assuming that the Greek word συνελόντες is a conjoined form: συν-ἐλίττω, or συνελίττω (to draw together, or metaphorically speaking: to speak concisely, “in short”). However, the serious dogmatical context which permeates the sentences which make up “Horos” shows that the root of this ward should be recognized as an aorist είλον as a aor.2’ ind.act. from αίρέω (to prove), and so should be translated as: “And by proving this, we declare”, since the most important Church matters are hereby repeatedly and solemnly declared. Within the 13th sentence there are 4 basic things that the Bishops “by proving declare”: • they guard the untouched ἀκαινοτομήτους Traditions of the universal Church since they, are not adding, nor taking away anything. • they emphasize that one of these Traditions is ἐκτύπωσις, which was the model for the first holy icons showing the outward appearance of Jesus Christ. • this ἐκτύπωσις adheres to the gospel predictions to τό κηρύγμα spread by the apostles. • it is to our advantage that we realize that since ἐκτύπωσις and κηρύγμα point to each other, the undisputedly have the same meaning. There are equally important because each of them independently, coming from Christ points to the truth of his incarnation for us; ἐκτύπωσις is the model for icons of Jesus which act upon our eyesight, and κηρύγμα spoken by the apostles and later written in the Gospel and read out loud acts upon our hearing. The analysis above can lead to a conclusion that this hither to underestimated by translators word is ἐκτύπωσις: model-print, or model seal, or imprinting, or re-printing or, however else we may try to interpret this mysterious word, which strangely disappears even in the early Latin translation: quorum una etiam imaginalis picture formation as: “and so one (of the Traditions) is the visual representation of the shape” One cannot say that, that is a wrong translation in general, but it loses the essence of the root of the word ἐκτύπωσις. Undoubtedly and imprint or a model-print, as if from a seal can also be called a “visual representation of the shape”, but only in the word ἐκτύπωσις we hear and can “see” in our mind that this »visual representation of shape« came to be by imprinting then as if by pressing the seal onto fabric or paper and there was direct contact which lead to visualizing the shape of the object. The Latin translation obscures this obviousness, and so in all the 20th century translations into modem languages, which (the translations) were based on the Latin version the sense of that sentence was more and diluted, and what follows, the meaning of the other sentences and maybe even the entire “Horos” was obscured. The rest of the article proposes that the Western Church looks upon it self through anathemas which reprimand us and which conclude the “Horos”. To conclude, it should be emphasized that the Niceanum II did not introduce any new teachings about tradition because it based its dogma about icons on the wholly untouched, unwritten tradition taken directly from Christ and the apostles. Perhaps now comes the time when we can begin reflecting responsibly within our Church upon this forgotten council, however, it is obvious that this work should be done by going back to the basics, that is to the analysis of the text of the original “Horos” in its own culturally-religious context without regard to the translation or all the conflicts that came later, or false historical influence.