An Orthodox Christian who is mindful of his or her spiritual life does not enter a church – whether it is a monument of great historical value or a lesser-known place of pilgrimage – merely to admire the architectural beauty and the splendour of the paintings; rather, they enter with the thrill of encountering God in prayer, the beauty of the iconographically adorned place of worship facilitating a deeper communion with Him through prayer. Therefore, when speaking of the importance of prayer in the life of the Christian and, more generally, of the Church, we cannot overlook the forms in which it takes shape and manifests itself; amongst these, in Orthodox Christian spirituality, is the veneration of holy icons.
Although the veneration of icons became established gradually in the life of the Church, in the early centuries it even met with great reluctance on the part of the Fathers and Christian writers, who feared the persistence of idolatrous worship amongst Christians of pagan origin or those still bound by the Old Testament Jewish tradition of iconoclasm, the holy icons have earned their rightful place and role within the Church. Not even the iconoclastic crisis, which manifested itself very violently, particularly during the reign of Emperor Constantine V (741–775), could not eradicate the veneration of holy icons, despite all the imperial and even episcopal support based on the decisions of the iconoclastic synod of Hieria (754), because icons had become ‘an integral part of the Christian world’. They were found everywhere and accompanied the life of the Christian, serving an educational purpose or as a devout expression of gratitude, playing an aesthetic role, but above all a liturgical one. They were “regarded by contemporaries with either distrust or spiritual joy, condemned or defended, forbidden under the old law of God, but justified through Jesus Christ”1).
The believer, especially those in the Christian East, was aware that they did not regard the icon merely as a simple decorative object; rather, for them, the holy icons had become a liturgical object, which naturally and visibly connected them to the prototype depicted iconographically, with whom they entered into a communion of veneration through prayer. For this reason, the presence of icons throughout liturgical and daily life ‘became for the Byzantine Christian a sure guarantee of blessing and salvation, a guarantee of divine protection and aid’2; coming from the prototype towards whom their prayer and veneration were directed; for, as Saint Basil the Great says, ‘the veneration offered to the icon is directed towards the one depicted in the icon’3.
This is closely linked both to the definition of holy icons given by Saint John of Damascus and to the distinction he draws between the worship due solely to God and the veneration or honour given to the saints pleasing to God, as well as objects made for the glory of God. Saint John of Damascus teaches ‘that an icon is a likeness, a model, an image of someone, which reveals in itself the one depicted in the icon’4; it being made for the remembrance and imitation of the prototype and for his veneration in prayer, so that we may partake of divine grace.
At the same time, Saint John of Damascus, intrigued by the assertion of Emperor Leo III (717–741) that holy icons were idols and that their veneration would violate the second commandment of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:4–5 and Deut. 5:8–9), explains the difference between an icon and an idol, pointing out that there is no resemblance between the two, since the icon depicts the true God, whilst idols are images of non-existent gods, from whom Christians have been freed through the incarnation of our Saviour Jesus Christ 5.
Although the Seventh Ecumenical Council condemned iconoclasm at Nicaea in 787, basing its decision on the theological writings of Saint John of Damascus against iconoclasm, the resurgence of the iconoclastic heresy at the Council of Hagia Sophia in 815, convened at the request of the iconoclastic Emperor Leo V the Armenian (813–820), prompted Saint Nicetas, Patriarch of Constantinople (806–815), to revisit the question of defining the icon in relation to its prototype. ‘The icon,’ he taught, ‘is a likeness of the prototype […], an imitation and a copy of it, distinct from it in essence and principle. It is a product of art, taking form through the imitation of the prototype’ or ‘the icon is the likeness of the prototype and, through this likeness, depicts the entire visible image of the one it represents, but differs from it by nature in that it is made of different material’6
The relationship established between the icon and the prototype—the latter being a person, and the former representing that person through the art of the iconographer—ensures that the prototype does not sever this relationship, even though there is a difference in essence between it and the icon; rather, it transmits the iconic model to the icon, and the icon receives from him and through him its form and veneration. Therefore, the believer, bowing before the icon, offers worship to the person depicted in the icon.
Even though we show veneration to the Mother of God and the Saints, whilst we offer adoration only to the Saviour Jesus Christ as the one true God, the honouring of icons is no different – we do so through bowing, kissing, incensing, and lighting candles and lamps before them; the difference lies solely in our intention: we venerate the saints, we honour the Mother of God, and we worship the Saviour Jesus Christ as God. The honour paid to the saints and their icons, and that paid to the Mother of God and her icons, is founded on the glorification and worship of God, as they become partakers of the divine nature, not in essence but by grace, and share in the holiness of God.
Saint John of Damascus unequivocally emphasises the difference between veneration and adoration, adoration being offered only to God, whilst veneration is offered to the bearers of God or to things consecrated to God. Although the same word (proskinisis) is used to define both forms of worship—that is, both that offered solely to God (worship) and that offered to the saints and holy icons (veneration)— the word proskinisis signifying a bodily movement, a devout bowing down to the ground, Saint John of Damascus clarifies the purpose or aim of this devout act through explanations that distinguish between adoration and veneration. The worship due to and offered only to God is called ‘worshipful proskynesis’ (proskinisis kata latreian), whilst the proskynesis offered to the saints and holy icons is called ‘proskynesis of honour or veneration’ (proskinisis kata timin)7. The ‘internal act’ is the term by which a distinction can be made between the two. If worship is also an internal act—not merely a physical bowing of the body, but a prostration of the soul and our entire being before the glory of God—then worship becomes adoration (latreia). If the internal act is absent, worship is merely veneration (proskinisis)8).
Worship that is due to and offered only to God is called worshipful prostration (proskinisis kata latreian), whilst the prostration offered to the saints and holy icons is called prostration of honour or veneration (proskinisis kata timin).
The iconoclasts failed to understand the nature of this distinction; consequently, they rejected the veneration of icons as worship and equated the icon with an idol. This is the only way to explain why Emperor Leo III, the instigator of the iconoclastic crisis, regarded himself as a liberator of the Church from idolatrous error (9).
In order to draw a clear distinction between an icon and an idol, the defenders of holy icons teach about the relationship between the icon and its prototype, which makes it unique and entirely different from pagan idols. In the religious conception of the pagans, idols are also positioned in a relationship with the deities they represent, but this relationship is with a non-existent, impersonal reality, because the idol is not the representation of a person—of God as a Person—but of an imagination, a creation of the human mind, arising from the primordial longing to remain in communion with God. This communion was lost through the Fall and through an ever-increasing estrangement from God.
The relationship between the icon and its prototype becomes special in Christianity because the prototype conveys and transfers to the icon its likeness and identity in name and form, though not in essence. For Saint John of Damascus, the reciprocal relationship between the icon and the prototype constitutes the theological foundation of his iconology.
Referring to the relationship between the emperor’s image and his person, he says: ‘If the emperor’s image is the emperor, then the icon of Christ is Christ, and the icon of the saint is the saint. Power is not divided, nor is glory shared, but the glory of the icon becomes the glory of the one depicted in the icon’10’. Saint John of Damascus compares the veneration of icons to the veneration of saints, for just as the saints, whilst still alive, acquired power and grace and were filled with the Holy Spirit, so too are icons granted the same power and the same grace. Icons bear the name of their prototype and through this name they are sanctified, whether it be the name of Christ or of a saint 11. It is the name that unites the icon with its prototype. If an icon of Christ or of a saint is endowed with the glory, power and divine grace of its prototype, then it is worthy of veneration. In this way, it does not become an idol, for it is not the material from which it is made—which is not worthy of veneration—that is honoured, but the person depicted upon it. Since our salvation was wrought through it, by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, it is worthy of honour: ‘I do not honour the material, but I worship the Creator of the material, the Creator who became material for my sake, and who deigned to dwell in material form, and through whom my salvation was accomplished’12
The relationship between the icon and its prototype is unique in Christianity because the prototype conveys and transfers to the icon its likeness and identity in name and form, though not in essence. (…) Icons bear the name of the prototype, and through this name they are sanctified, whether it be the name of Christ or that of a saint. It is the name that unites the icon with its prototype.
Consequently, when it is said that the honour paid to the icon passes or ascends to the prototype, this ‘indicates the prototype as a transcendence perceived through the icon, as a reality distinct from the icon, though connected to it’. This teaching is also reinforced by Saint Nicetas, who states that the icon participates in a certain way in the prototype, has a relationship with it, mediates knowledge of it and evokes its memory. The icon is the most worthy of veneration among sacred symbols, serving to glorify and reveal God’s economy, so that through it honour may be bestowed upon the prototype 13.
Therefore, for the Orthodox Christian, venerating the icon means venerating the one depicted, and the prayer offered before the icon places the worshipper in direct contact and communion with the prototype. Even though the icon is categorically distinct from its prototype in essence, it is identified with it in hypostasis or by name 14. The Council of Nicaea clearly emphasised the importance of the name inscribed on icons, for it is through this that they are distinguished from idols 15. Thus, the name ensures the identity between the icon and the prototype. The Nicene Fathers teach that icons are full of grace in and of themselves by virtue of their very name. That is why we honour and kiss them as something holy […], for through the name of the one depicted in the icon we are lifted up to the veneration of the person, and we kiss it, and we bow before it with honour, partaking of holiness16”.
Thus, for the Orthodox Christian, honouring the icon means honouring the one depicted, and the prayer offered before the icon places him in direct connection and communion with the prototype.
For his part, Saint Theodore the Studite shows that between an icon and its prototype there is only a relationship of likeness, and not an identity of being: ‘The prototype and the icon are one through hypostatic likeness, but two by their nature. Two, not in the sense that one is divided into two, so that there is no communion or relationship between them, nor in the sense that one and the same is called by two names, so that at one time the prototype is called an icon, and at another time the icon is called the prototype. For the prototype is always called the prototype, just as the icon is called the icon, without one being transformed into the other. This being the case, and since they are two in number, there is a single likeness in both and a single name for them based on that likeness’17
Lest it be understood that the icon’s sharing in the form and name of the prototype would imply equality with it in hypostasis, Saint Theodore makes a clear distinction between the natural icon and the artistic icon 18. The natural icon is identified with its prototype both in essence and in the likeness of which it is the seal, just as Christ is like His Father in His divinity and like His Mother in His humanity. The artistic icon, however, is foreign to the essence of the prototype, just as the icon of Christ is in relation to Christ Himself; in this case, we speak only of a relationship of likeness 19.
The likeness between the artistic icon and its prototype also implies a hypostatic likeness, but not in terms of nature, lest it be understood that it becomes a distinct, independent hypostasis. The artistic icon is not a distinct hypostasis, for it is nothing in itself, but merely a representation of a hypostasis 20. Precisely because it has no being of its own, unlike that of the hypostasis it represents, the icon is the likeness of a hypostasis; it represents a hypostasis in itself. The icon depicts the hypostasis, but not according to its nature, for the nature of the hypostasis cannot be perceived in the icon, its nature lying in its prototypical existence, and not in the icon. Therefore, the icon is not a prototype, for it is not one with the hypostasis in terms of its being, but merely depicts the hypostasis as the self-subsistent state of being. Nevertheless, the icon points to the hypostasis as a reality distinct from itself, as a subsistent nature beyond it. But it does not point to a non-hypostatic nature, since nature does not exist in itself, so as to be the prototype of the icon.
Consequently, for Saint Theodore the Studite, the icon is distinct from the prototype in terms of being, but not in terms of hypostasis. For, although it is not the prototype itself, it signifies the prototype as a hypostasis. Furthermore, the icon does not represent the being, but the hypostasis, since its prototype is not nature in itself, but nature subsisting in the hypostasis 21. The relationship between the icon and the prototype also guarantees the holiness of the icon. It is the features defining the image it represents that confer holiness upon the icon, and not the material from which it is made, so as not to give the impression that icons are associated with holy relics. If the image painted on the icon has faded, what was once an icon becomes a mere piece of wood, which is burnt 22. To illustrate how he understands the relationship between the icon and its prototype, Saint Theodore draws on the analogy between a seal and its impression: ‘The image of the emperor engraved on a ring is imprinted in wax, pitch or clay. The seal remains unchanged in each of these three forms of matter, which, in turn, differ from one another. The seal can remain the same—always the same—only if it does not enter into any connection with the various materials, but remains in the signet ring, separate from the materials into which it is imprinted. The likeness of Christ is just the same. Even though it is engraved on various materials, it does not enter into any connection with the matter in which it is formed, but, on the contrary, remains in the person of Christ, to whom it properly belongs”23
Whilst the iconoclasts understand the icon-prototype relationship only as equality, when they are of the same essence, or as otherness, when they differ in essence, iconodule theology adds a third relationship, namely that of one’s participation in the other, even though there is no identity of essence between them. Consequently, the icon cannot depict the connection between the two natures of Christ, for the iconodules have never claimed that the icon depicts anything essential corresponding to the natures of Christ 24. The icon does not depict the nature, but the hypostasis, as Saint Theodore the Studite categorically affirms 25. In accordance with Chalcedonian Christology, the iconodules could teach that Christ the Saviour, the incarnate divine Logos, becomes the prototype of His icon. The icon, being the representation of a hypostasis, depicts only what can be seen in a human being, that is, what is proper to the one represented (the prototype), what distinguishes him as a concrete individual from another individual. The icon therefore depicts the prototype or the person, and not the nature.
The icon of Christ becomes ‘the seal of God’s kenosis’26 It lifts our gaze towards the image of the One who, though He is God, assumed the characteristics of an individual existence. His icon shows us that we may approach the Saviour without fear. Through contemplating it, we shall be imbued with the cleansing and sanctifying mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation. For this reason, the icon is ‘the most visible sign of the economy of our salvation’27.
The icon of Christ becomes ‘the seal of God’s kenosis’. It lifts our gaze towards the image of the One who, though He is God, assumed the characteristics of an individual existence. His icon shows us that we can approach the Saviour without fear. Through contemplating it, we shall be imbued with the cleansing and sanctifying mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation.
By analysing the content of the prayer for the consecration of the icon of the Saviour Jesus Christ, we shall understand why the icon has become an indispensable liturgical element of the spiritual life of the Orthodox believer. Whilst it is shown that God forbade the making of idols, He Himself also commanded that images of cherubim be made, and that everything reminding us of His time spent with people be honoured as if He Himself were present:
‘[…] two golden cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and two at the corners of the laver, and on the curtain, a multitude of embroidered cherubim […], in the sanctuary two cherubim of cypress wood overlaid with gold; and You commanded that the Ark, containing the stone tablets, the golden ephod and Aaron’s rod—which signified Your dwelling there amongst the people, and the remembrance of Your glorious miracles and blessings—should be honoured with reverence, trembling and the worship due to them; and You accepted that honour with mercy, as though it had been offered to You Yourself’28
To show, then, for what purpose the icons were painted and how they become a place and an object for the expression of our piety through prayer directed towards the prototype, the prayer of consecration continues:
‘And we too, O Most Gracious Lord, Almighty One, this icon of Your Beloved Son, in remembrance of the Incarnation, of all the glorious miracles and the blessings bestowed upon the human race through His coming as a man upon the earth, have placed it with honour before Thy glory, not deifying it, but knowing that the honour given to the icon ascends to Him who is depicted upon it. And, prostrating ourselves, we earnestly pray: send upon it Your heavenly blessing and the grace of the Most Holy Spirit, and bless it, and sanctify it, and grant it healing power and the power to drive out all devilish wiles. Fill it with the blessing and power of the holy image not made by human hands, which it has abundantly received through contact with the most holy and most pure face of Your beloved Son. That through it may be wrought powers and miracles for the strengthening of the true faith and for the salvation of Your faithful people; that all who, before it, shall worship You, the Almighty, and to Your Only-Begotten Son, and to the Most Holy Spirit, and with faith call upon You and pray, may we be heard, and may we find the mercy of Your love for mankind, and may we obtain grace […]”29
Similarly, the piety of the Orthodox believer in relation to the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints is attested to in the prayer for the consecration of other icons:
“Lord, our God, […] look now upon us, who humbly pray to You and who call her by name, and believe her to be truly the Mother of God, and with faith call upon her in our prayer to You. Through her prayers, grant that our petitions and prayers may be heard, and send the grace of Your Most Holy Spirit upon this icon. […] Bless it with Your heavenly blessing and grant it the power and strength to work miracles. Make her a healer and a source of healing for all those who, in their suffering, bow before her and ask You for help through the Mother of God. And may all who, before this icon, honour the most blessed Virgin and Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, Your most beloved Son, and call upon her as a mediatrix for the Christian people in their prayers to You, and for help in their needs and tribulations, grant them deliverance, protection and swift aid. Grant them, in Your mercy, forgiveness of their sins, and may they swiftly receive the grace they seek from You, and find the mercy they desire from Your love for mankind, and may they be partakers of the Kingdom […]”30
And at the consecration of the icon of a saint, we pray that:
‘all those who honour it, worship it and pray to You before it, and who call upon the Saint (depicted, n.n.) in their prayers to You, may You be attentive to them, merciful and a generous giver of all that is good, delivering them from all distress and need, and from all spiritual and bodily sorrows, and making them worthy of the grace and mercy they seek from You […]”31
We note that all the gifts and blessings we ask to be bestowed through the veneration of these icons are the requests that the believer directs in prayer towards the prototype represented in the icon. As such, the icon becomes a place of encounter and communion through prayer between the Christian and the person depicted in the icon.
The veneration of holy icons through the burning of incense, the lighting of oil lamps and candles before them, and humble prayer directed towards the prototype did not affect the Christian’s true faith, nordivert his spiritual journey onto the wrong path, towards idolatry, as the iconoclasts believed. When Emperor Leo III first revealed his iconoclastic intentions, arguing that the veneration of icons led to idolatry, he met with resistance from the faithful who, seeing the icons raised to a height where they could no longer kiss them, could no longer prostrate themselves before them and could no longer light lamps and candles before them, regarded this as a serious attack on their faith and spirituality. When the soldier Jovius climbed up to take down the icon of the Saviour from the Chalke Gate, the main entrance to the city of Constantinople, he aroused even greater fury amongst the faithful, with several devout women snatching the ladder from him, knocking him down and thus leaving him at the mercy of the angry crowd, who killed him.
Even though the act did not go unpunished, the emperor realised that for the Eastern Christian, the icon is not merely an object of veneration, but a means of transmitting sanctifying grace from the prototype to the praying Christian. Whilst for Western Christians the spiritual connection with the icon was based more on its aesthetic and didactic-catechetical function, for Eastern Christians it was far more profound, as it incorporated, above all, the liturgical function. The veneration of holy icons created a direct link with the prototype depicted in the icon and became a means of receiving active and sanctifying grace. This was because the believer, in venerating the icon, did not venerate the material itself, but the image depicted, and this veneration ascended to the person whose image was revealed by the icon.
Whilst for Western Christians the spiritual connection with the icon was based more on its aesthetic and didactic-catechetical function, for Eastern Christians it was far more profound, as it incorporated, above all, the liturgical function.
This direct relationship with the prototype was possible only after the Incarnation, when God the Father revealed Himself through His incarnate Son. That is why Saint John of Damascus could affirm with complete conviction the possibility and indeed the necessity of painting an icon of the Saviour Jesus Christ: ‘When you see that the Incorporeal One has become man for your sake, then you shall make an icon of His human likeness. When the Unseen One has made Himself seen in the flesh, then you shall depict in an icon the likeness of Him who has made Himself seen. When the One without a body, without form, without weight or quality, without size—because of the superiority of His nature—He who exists in the image of God took on the form of a servant, through this approach to quantity and quality, and took on the form of a body, then depict Him in icons and set before us for contemplation the One who chose to be seen. Depict His nameless descent, the Birth of the Virgin, the Baptism in the Jordan, the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, the Passion – the means to impassibility, death, the miracles – the symbols of His divine nature, miracles performed through the working of the body, yet with the aid of the divine, the saving Cross, the burial, the Resurrection, the Ascension into heaven. Depict them all, both in word and in colour”32
For this reason, the devout believer honours the holy icons unreservedly, as they remind him of the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ and bring him into communion of prayer and holiness with their original model. They therefore play an important liturgical and sacramental role. Pope Adrian I, who represented the Western iconographic tradition with a greater emphasis on the aesthetic and didactic role, wrote to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople (784–806) and the synod at Nicaea: ‘When we gaze upon the icons depicting the Son of God, who became incarnate for our sake and for our salvation, they lead our souls, through the mediation of a visible image, towards spiritual love. In the same way, we worship this Saviour, Who is in heaven, and we glorify Him, directing our souls towards Him, as it is written: ‘God is Spirit’, and therefore we worship His Divinity in a spiritual manner”33
Remaining entirely faithful to Chalcedonian theology, the defenders of the holy icons rejected any attempt by the iconoclasts to oppose their veneration, even when the latter invoked the dogma of the union of the natures in Christ. Because they did not acknowledge the mystery of the kenosis, but taught of the union of the Godhead with common humanity, devoid of personal attributes as a result of its deification in the Monophysite sense 34, the iconoclasts rejected any possibility of depicting Christ in an icon. The defenders of icons succeeded in refuting their opponents’ arguments and exposing the influences of their Monophysite thinking; the veneration of icons was thus re-established on the basis of their teachings at the SeventhEcumenical Council and then definitively by the Council of 842.
Thus was won the final battle fought in defence of the decrees of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. By accepting the icon of Christ, one professes the preservation of the attributes of the human nature assumed by the incarnate Word of God, including, amongst these, the incarnation as a condition of His true Incarnation, as the presence and work of Christ in the world, a divine and human person at the same time.
In the synodal definition of Nicaea, it could be affirmed that ‘The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must honour and glorify above all the Holy Mother of God, who is more honoured than all the heavenly powers. Next, we honour the holy angels, the holy apostles, the prophets and martyrs, the holy teachers and all the saints, just as our fathers have taught us. We invoke them in prayer, for they can move God to mercy, if we live in truth. We also venerate the icon of the holy and life-giving Cross, and the relics of the saints. We accept the holy and venerable icons, we kiss them and embrace them, according to the ancient tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Church of God, that is, according to the teachings of the holy fathers, namely: those icons of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, of the Most Holy and Immaculate Lady, the Mother of God, of the saints and of the incorporeal angels, who have appeared to the righteous in human form. We also venerate the icons of the holy apostles, the prophets, the martyrs and all the saints, for through them we are reminded of the originals by their representation and are led to a certain participation in their holiness35’."
From the above, it may be concluded that the icon has been and remains an object of worship with liturgical significance, revealing to us through its representation the image of the Hypostasis whom we honour and with whom, entering into communion through prayer, we receive grace and blessing. Therefore, for the Orthodox believer, holy icons have not only an aesthetic and didactic role, but above all a liturgical-sacramental one. In venerating them, the believer does not limit themselves merely to visible acts (incensing, lighting candles and lamps, etc.), but above all offers a prayer before them, which is directed towards the prototype, towards the one represented iconically by the holy icons.
- 1
G. Dumeige, Nizäa II, Mainz, 1987, p. 78.
- 2
Marin, The Monks of Constantinople from the Founding of the City to the Death of Photius (330–898), Paris, 1897, pp. 318–324, cited in H. Leclercq, ‘Images (cult and controversy over)’, in Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie VII/1, pp. 223–224.
- 3
St Basil the Great, De Spirito Sancto, 18, 45, in J.P. Migne, PG 32, col. 149 C.
- 4
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, III, 16, in B. Kotter (ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskus. Published by the Byzantine Institute of Scheyern Abbey, coll. Patristic Studies and Texts, Vol. 17, Berlin/New York, 1975, p. 125.
- 5
“[…] it is terrifying, and more than terrifying, that the Church—which shines with so many virtues and which was adorned in ancient times with the teachings of the most pious men—should return once more to the wretched elements (Gal. 4:9), fearing where there is no fear (Ps. 52:6) and, as though it did not know the true God, to fear falling into idolatry”; St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 1–2, p. 66.
- 6
Patriarch Nichifor of Constantinople, Antirrheticus I, J.P. Migne, P.G. 100, col. 277 A.
- 7
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 14, p. 87.
- 8
See H. Menges, Die Bilderlehre des Hl. Johannes von Damaskus, Kallmünz, 1937, p. 68.
- 9
N. Chifăr, Icon, Iconology, Iconography, Basilica Publishing, Bucharest, 2018, p. 114.
- 10
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 36; III, 42, p. 147.
- 11
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, III, 12, p. 103.
- 12
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 16, p. 89; III, 14, p. 105.
- 13
St Dumitru Stăniloae, ‘Jesus Christ as the Prototype of His Icon’, in Mitropolia Moldovei și Sucevei, no. 3–4/1958, p. 247.
- 14
G. Ostrogorsky, Studies on the History of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy, Amsterdam, 1964, p. 43.
- 15
“The icon is identified with the prototype not in essence, but only by name and by the features of the one depicted. No one in their right mind would seek to perceive in the icon the attributes of the prototype, for the rational mind recognises in the icon nothing other than an identity in name with the person depicted, and by no means in essence.” G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XIII, Florence, 1766, col. 244B and 257D.
- 16
G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XIII, col. 269E. These clarifications were necessary because the iconoclasts regarded the Holy Cross, the vessels, the liturgical vestments and, by extension, the icons, to be mere objects crafted by a carpenter, painter, weaver or silversmith, retaining their profane nature even if they had been consecrated through a special prayer. Remaining consistent with their Manichaean-tinged conception, they held that matter, even after consecration, remains detestable, profane and lifeless. G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XIII, col. 268C.
- 17
St Theodore the Studite, Antirrhetici tres adversus Iconomachos III, in PG 99, col. 428.
- 18
St John of Damascus identifies six types of icons, outlining the specific characteristics of each. See St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 9–13 and III, 18–24 (ed. Kotter), pp. 84 and 127–131.
- 19
St Theodore the Studite, Antirrhetici tres adversus Iconomachos III, B, 2, in Ioan I. Ică Jr, ‘Byzantine Iconology between Imperial Politics and Monastic Holiness’, introductory study to St Theodore the Studite, Jesus Christ, Prototype of His Icon, Deisis Publishers, Alba Iulia, 1996, pp. 150–151.
- 20
Far more incomplete is the definition of the icon given by Saint John of Damascus. He teaches: ‘An icon is a likeness that depicts the original. However, there is a certain distinction between the icon and the original, for the icon does not resemble the original in every respect.’ St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 9, p. 83. Or: ‘An icon is a likeness, a model, an image of someone, which reveals within it the one who is depicted in the icon.’ St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, III, 16, p. 125.
- 21
See St Dumitru Stăniloae, ‘Jesus Christ as the Prototype of His Icon’, in Mitropolia Moldovei și Sucevei (MMS), vol. XXXIV, 1958, no. 3–4, p. 251.
- 22
This custom is confirmed even by some defenders of icons. See Leontius of Naples, To the Jews, V, in PG 93, col. 1597B–1600AC.
- 23
St Theodore the Studite, Antirrhetici tres adversus Iconomachos III, in PG 99, col. 504D–505A.
- 24
See G. Ostrogorsky, Studies on the History of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy, p. 43.
- 25
St Theodore the Studite, Antirrhetici tres adversus Iconomachos III, in PG 99, col. 405B.
- 26
C. v. Schönborn, Die Christus-Ikone, p. 224.
- 27
St Theodore the Studite, Antirrhetici tres adversus Iconomachos I, in PG 99, col. 335A.
- 28
Prayer Book, published by the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Bucharest, 2019, pp. 809–810.
- 29
Ibid., pp. 810–811.
- 30
Ibid., p. 815.
- 31
Ibid., p. 819.
- 32
St John of Damascus, Contra Imaginum calomniatores orationes tres, I, 8; III, 8, p. 82.
- 33
G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XII, col. 1062AB.
- 34
G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XIII, col. 257E–260AB.
- 35
G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. XIII, col. 132A–E.