Do Eastern Orthodox Christians object to Christ being depicted as a Lamb?

[GBR1]

So I was looking at various wikipedia articles and I came across one on the Quinisext Council held in 692 AD. It stated that

In addition to recording earlier decisions and attempting to curb pagan practices, many of the new regulations were aimed at settling differences between the Eastern and Western church practices regarding ritual observance and clerical discipline. Being held under Byzantine auspices, with an exclusively Eastern clergy, these regulations overwhelmingly regarded the customs of the Church of Constantinople as the orthodox practice.[1]

Practices in the Church in the West that had got the attention of the Eastern Patriarchates were condemned, such as: the practice of celebrating Masses on weekdays in Lent (rather than having Pre-Sanctified Liturgies); of fasting on Saturdays throughout the year; of omitting the “Alleluia” in Lent;** of depicting Christ as a Lamb.** Larger disputes were revealed regarding Eastern and Western attitudes toward celibacy for priests and deacons, with the Council affirming the right of married men to become priests and prescribing excommunication for anyone who attempted to separate a clergyman from his wife, or for any cleric who abandoned his wife. The council also endorsed these lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (~385 CE), the Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE ?), the Third Synod of Carthage (~397 CE), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE).

Pope Sergius I, who was of Syrian origin, rejected the council, preferring, he said, “to die rather than consent to erroneous novelties”. Though a loyal subject of the Empire, he would not be “its captive in matters of religion” and refused to sign the canons.[2] Emperor Justinian II ordered his arrest and abduction to Constantinople by the notoriously violent protospatharios Zacharias.[3] However, the militia of the exarchate of Ravenna frustrated the attempt.[4] Zacharias nearly lost his life in his attempt to arrest Sergius I.[5][6] Meanwhile, in Visigothic Spain, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza, who was vilified by later chroniclers for his decision.[7] Fruela I of Asturias reversed the decision of Toledo sometime during his reign (757–768).[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

I included the whole paragraph, as well as the preceding and following paragraph for context, but what I’m mainly interested in is the bolded part, the objection to “depicting Christ as a Lamb”. Does any one know the objection the East had to this? Christ as a Lamb is a very biblical image, especially in the Book of Revelation, and there wasn’t any mention of why they objected to it’s use.

Also, for our EO brethren on this site, do the Orthodox Churches still object to this image today? I did a Google search and couldn’t find anything definitive. On the one hand, I found that EO churches do not depict Christ as a Lamb in their iconography, which would seem to suggest that the Lamb of God symbol is still frowned upon. On the other hand, I found a site that claims that the Eucharistic bread in the Divine Liturgy is referred to as the Lamb, (is this true?) which would make objections to Christ portrayed as a Lamb even more confusing to me.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

 

[Rawb]

It’s a longish sort of issue.

Images in Orthodoxy are very important. There are, traditionally, rules governing the way images are made and how they’re used. Iconography and the idea of “Icon” is central to Orthodox spirituality. Changing the way Icons are painted is akin to changing the wording of Scripture. Yes, in translation there’s a little bit of leeway, but you really have to guard how much.

So when you look at the centrality of imagery to Orthodoxy it becomes clear why we are very careful with what is allowed. Christ isn’t a lamb, and though that symbolism is used Icons are a bit beyond symbolism. We venerate them and treat them as holy objects, and so to depict Christ as a lamb is to depict Him as a symbol of what He truly is. It gets confusing and so better to stick with the real image of His face.

But yes, the actual part of the loaf of bread used in the anaphora (consecration) to become the Eucharist is called the lamb. It’s a symbolic title. Also yes, many Orthodox would think it weird to have Christ depicted, visually, as a lamb. They wouldn’t be horrified, but it’s not done. The other issues mentioned in your paragraphs are of greater importance, really.

So as a title it’s considered appropriate and common, but visually depicting it is wrong. It’d be like depicting Christ as a door, or a vine. Those are symbols of Who He is, not the actuality of Who He is.