Icons on Prosphorae: Right or Wrong?

Today we delve into a topic that has sparked considerable debate: the practice of depicting iconographic images, most notably of the Virgin Mary and saints, on prosphorae and artos.

This practice has recently come under scrutiny, with critics arguing that it deviates from canonical and liturgical norms. We believe exploring the rationale behind these critiques will be enlightening for our readers.

Canonical Considerations: Materials and Veneration

The Seventh Ecumenical Council clearly outlined that icons should be crafted from durable materials such as paints, mosaics, or other appropriate mediums, to be "honoured by kissing and venerating them... with incense and candles," in keeping with the devout traditions of our forebears.

This directive implies that icons are intended to be made from materials that withstand the test of time. In contrast, church bread, designed for consumption during or shortly after liturgical services, is ephemeral, fragile, and fundamentally perishable.

Critics of the current practice highlight a significant concern: venerating icons through consumption introduces a concept akin to iconophagy, eerily reminiscent of historical instances of magical practices.

Moreover, employing artos and prosphorae adorned with images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints risks a regression in Christian spiritual awareness. This practice bears uncomfortable similarities to pagan theophagy—the ritual consumption of deities represented by bread and grain in human form—a practice observed, among others, in ancient civilizations such as Rome and among the Aztecs.

The Evolution of the Eucharistic Bread Seal

Historical investigations reveal that the initial seals on Eucharistic bread bore no Christian symbols or imagery but served as identifiers of the bread's origin.

Epiphanius of Cyprus, in the 4th century, describes Eucharistic bread as a small, thick loaf marked with a cross imprint. This symbol of faith was later accompanied by the inscription ІС/ХС-НІ/КА, enriching its spiritual significance.

In regions like Syria and Egypt, the practice involved using seals that depicted multiple crosses, often encircled by the inscription αγιος ίσχυρος (holy strong), adding a layer of devotion and reverence to the Eucharistic celebration.

The Moscow Councils of 1666 and 1667 within the Russian Orthodox Church standardised the prosphora seal to feature a four-pointed cross. A notable development in 1971 by the Local Council recognized also the Old Believer tradition of the eight-pointed cross on seals, marking these as the sole canonical images permitted on prosphorae.

The Synodal period (1700-1917) of Russian Church often characterised by a decline in church culture, witnessed an expansion in the variety of images stamped on prosphorae, occasionally sanctioned by the clergy. For instance, certain churches, particularly monasteries, were allowed to use seals depicting their patron saints or symbols representing the church's consecrated feast. These special prosphorae were typically reserved for significant occasions and not for general distribution or commemoration during proskomedia.

Contrastingly, there were instances of unauthorised initiatives, as mentioned, for instance, in a circular letter from the bishop of Smolensk condemning the practice of some priests using prosphorae with the Sign of the Holy Theotokos for removing the Lamb, diverging from the traditional cross seal. The post-revolutionary period saw an intensification of these practices amidst ecclesiastical disruptions.

Special Consideration: The Theotokos (Panagia) Prosphora

The tradition of a distinct prosphora for honouring the Blessed Virgin Mary, known as the Panagia prosphora, though widely observed, is not codified within Church regulations.

Sergius V. Bulgakov, in his "Clergyman's Handbook," in the beginning of the XX century highlights this as a regional custom prevalent in the Russian Orthodox Church's southwestern territories, contrasting with the northeastern dioceses' practice of using the standard "cross" prosphora for particles in honor of the Theotokos.

Historical accounts suggest that at that period priests would extract a notably large particle from the prosphora, carefully preserving the seal, be it a cross or, more infrequently, the name "MARY."

Contemporary practices, particularly when the prosphora bears an icon of the Mother of God, involve cutting a small particle from the side to avoid damaging the image, a method also applied to prosphorae featuring the name of the Theotokos.

Breaking of the artos with the image of the Resurrection of Christ

The Tradition of the Artos Seal

According to Chapter 50 of the Typikon, the Artos is defined as a prosphora "bearing the image of the cross". The Typikon further elaborates that almost all Holy Week rituals are conducted with the Artos in conjunction with the icon of the Resurrection, except for Holy Saturday. On this day, following the Liturgy's conclusion, the deacon proceeds to the refectory with "the Artos, devoid of the Resurrection of Christ image" (Typikon, Ch. 50, On Saturday of Holy Week).

Archpriest Andrew Krivonis from Sevastopol points out, "This delineation within the Church Statute underscores the incongruity and illogical nature of depicting the Resurrection of Christ on the Artos."

A departure from the Typikon's directives has led to the creation of Artos that, rather than featuring a cross, centralises the Resurrection of Christ image. This amalgamates two liturgically distinct elements (an icon and a prosphora) into a single entity.

This adaptation has gained popularity, often driven by aesthetic appeal and the desire to emulate others, overshadowing the fundamental essence of the practice. Advancements in baking technology have facilitated the fulfilment of any design request, creating a cycle where demand fuels supply and vice versa.

Consequently, breaking an Artos seal adorned with the Risen Lord and holy angels on Holy Saturday becomes a contentious and spiritually unsettling act, diverging from piety. One priest disclosed his method of disposing of the Artos seals by burning them, though he acknowledges this neither aligns with their intended use nor respects the depicted icons.

Three quotes as a conclusion to the article:

"The introduction of iconographic printing on prosphorae and Artos represents a relatively modern innovation, lacking canonical foundation and conflicting with the sacred images' intended reverence and treatment." (Priest Pavel Adelheim)

"Therefore, it seems appropriate to return to the ancient church tradition, prescribed both by the Typikon and the decrees of Church Councils." (Archpriest Andrew Krivonis).

We trust this discussion has been enlightening. For those unsettled by these revelations, consider the words of Archpriest Konstantin Ostrovsky from Krasnogorsk:

"We have many liturgical shortcomings and errors; of course it would be good to correct them if possible, but God tolerates us with our weaknesses, so let us also be patient with one another."

May God's guidance and blessings be upon us all!