Chapter V Veneration of Icons

In the chapter devoted to the consideration of the issue of icon veneration, Pavel Rogozin writes: "A great influence on the appearance of images was exerted by those drawings with which the first Christians tried to remind the figurative speech of their Divine Teacher. The symbols of the lamb, the vine, the fish, the inscription of alpha and omega, the monograms of the name of Christ, and so on, were a kind of puzzles, the meaning of which was revealed to believers, but hidden from the uninitiated.

Gradually, there was a transition from drawings depicting the earthly life of Christ to depicting Christians who were famous for their martyrdom and feats."80 The art of the early Christian period really knew the language of symbols, this was required, in particular, by the conditions of the existence of the Church surrounded by the pagan world. The little that has come down to us from the art of the first Christians can be judged mainly from the frescoes of the Roman catacombs. But already in the catacombs, along with symbolic images of Christ, we also find those that depict Christ in the form of a man, primarily in the image of the Good Shepherd, and such images appear as early as the first century81 and are almost always placed in the center of the vaults of the burial chambers, constituting, importantly, the main subject82 of the paintings. This does not allow us to agree with Rogozin's statement: "With the development of the worship of the Virgin Mary and the dead saints, there arose in the church the need for images of these saints of God, the Virgin Mary, and later Christ Himself (emphasis added). – M.O.)" 83. The images of the Mother of God in the catacombs are almost as numerous as the images of the Saviour, but while Christ is often depicted symbolically, the Mother of God is always depicted directly. However, the oldest of the extant images of the Mother of God dates back to the second century.84 In the catacombs, in addition to symbolic or direct images of the Savior and the Mother of God, images of apostles, prophets, martyrs, angels, and all the diversity of Christian iconography have also been discovered.85

We fundamentally disagree with the following statement by Rogozin, which, in our opinion, reveals the author's incompetence in the issue he is trying to consider: "... at first (when exactly is not specified. – M.O.) these images served only as decoration of church walls..."86 The images of the period of the early Church carry a deep theological meaning, their content is primarily Christocentric, focused on the theme of sacrifice. A vine and ears of wheat, laurel garlands and a ship – each of these and many other images common in catacomb painting concentrates Christological, Eucharistic aspects of meanings: wheat and grapes are the Body and Blood of Christ, laurel is Christ the Victorious, and the ship is the image of the Church of Christ in the world.87 Finally, the most important image of the fish in catacomb painting has its basis not only in the images of the worker and the fish, as symbols of the preacher and the convert (Matt. 4:19, Mk. 1:17), but also, above all, is the most ancient symbol of faith of the Christian Church: the initial letters of the Greek word "fish" signify the following words (we quote them in Latin transcription): "Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter", which means "Jesus Christ, The Son of God, the Saviour." As we can see, the images of the catacombs are filled with the deepest semantic content and by no means can be called "only the decoration of church walls".

Further, Pavel Rogozin writes: "It was not long before a new and sadder misconception appeared. Some images of Christ and saints, and especially images of the Virgin Mary, were attributed miracles and healings by the church. Such icons (or statues) were solemnly declared "miraculous" and became a source of constant and very significant income for the church and clergy."88 We will leave the tone of the accusation, imbued with the spirit of anti-religious propaganda of the Soviet era, on the conscience of the author and those who are republishing the book "Where Did All This Come From?" without bothering to adapt it to the present day. As for the assertion that the Church "ascribed" miracles and healings to icons, one can object to this very simply: "Come and see!" The Lord has performed and still performs miracles and healings through the prayer of believers, in particular, before the venerated images and relics of saints, proof of which anyone interested in this topic can find many confirmations.

In our deep conviction, ignorance of the doctrinal basis of the veneration of icons does not give the right to make statements of such a kind as: "By virtue of the simple fact that worship has entered the practice of the Church "from time immemorial," it is recognized as correct. The tradition of antiquity seems to deprive the faithful of the right to doubt or not to believe in the legitimacy of such veneration, although the modern Church has no grounds for the veneration of icons, just as the ancient Apostolic Church did not have theirs (emphasis added. – M.O.)" 89.

In an effort to refute the Church's teaching on the veneration of icons, Rogozin, first of all, refers to the second commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:4:5), seeing in the prohibition to serve idols a prohibition to venerate icons, while not even trying to substantiate the legitimacy of his analogy: "despite the direct prohibition to 'create' images and 'worship' them, which we find in the second commandment of the Decalogue, this error (meaning the veneration of icons. – M.O.) spread with incredible rapidity."90 The author's attempt to appeal to the second commandment of the Decalogue without more detailed explanations of his appeal is insufficient for a serious consideration of the topic raised. The Church gave Her answer to this objection in many respects as early as the 8th century, and in order to be convinced of this, one can use almost any Orthodox work devoted to the history of the Ancient Church, or the exposition of the Church's doctrine. Incidentally, it should be noted that the objections of the iconoclasts of the 8th-9th centuries. In comparison with the arguments of the author of the book under consideration, they are more substantiated and thoughtful.

In an attempt to cite the invisibility of God as an argument against the veneration of icons, Rogozin refers to the Gospel verse: "'No one has ever seen God' (John 1:18),"91 not wishing, however, to quote it to the end and to see the meaning that Apostle Paul himself put into it. John: "The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed," He has revealed, for "the Word was made flesh," as the Apostle says. John a few lines above (John 1:14).

Text 1 Tim. 6:15-16, as Rogozin himself rightly observes, refers to the divine essence:92 indeed, "to depict Christ in all His heavenly glory... is unthinkable,"93 just as it is inconceivable to try to depict God according to His divine nature, which is what the author is trying to tell the reader. True, the question remains unclear: where and when did the Orthodox Church teach that the icons of Christ depict His Divine nature? The question of what is depicted on the icon - nature or personality - was raised in the 8th century by Emperor Constantine Copronymos, and the Church gave its own answer to it. Pavel Rogozin writes: "To depict Christ in His earthly humiliation is unreasonable... Not only did Paul and the Christians of that time not worship the image of Christ, but they should not have had the humiliated flesh of Christ as a visible object of worship if such an opportunity suddenly appeared."94 Unfortunately, the author does not specify what he means when he speaks of the "flesh of Christ" - the human nature of Christ or Christ Himself in the flesh - however, it is impossible to separate human flesh from human nature, just as it is impossible to separate human nature, irrevocably assumed by the Word in the Incarnation, from the Very Hypostasis of the Word. It is not superfluous to recall here that "there is no nature devoid of hypostasis, or essence without a face (for both essence and nature are seen in hypostases and persons),"95 and therefore it is impossible to depict the human nature of Christ by separating it from the person of Christ. The nature of all people is identical, but there are many personalities, and each of them is unique. When we paint a portrait, we do not depict abstract human nature, but a concrete person, a concrete person, but at the same time having a human nature. If the image in the portrait is not the image of human flesh separated from the person depicted, then why is it necessary to consider that the image of Christ is the image of His flesh separated from His Person? As for the human nature of Christ, in the context of the theme of the worship of Christ, given by the faithful through the veneration of icons depicting Him, it should be noted that the human nature of Christ, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, thanks to the interchange (perihoresis), the communion of the properties (communicatio idiomatum) of the two natures – Divine and human – is not only healed from the consequences of the fall of Adam – sin and death, but is also transformed. deified: "Such is the image of interchange, when each of the two principles transmits to the other what is peculiar to it because of the identity of the hypostasis",96 "The Godhead gives to the flesh his own properties... Therefore the flesh in Christ... is deified."97 If we turn to the New Testament texts, we will see that the contemporaries of Christ would not clearly share Rogozin's point of view on the question of the worship of Christ. As follows from the Gospel, Christ was worshipped during His earthly life: people prostrate themselves before Him, asking for healing (Luke 5:12) and thanking for Him (Luke 17:16). It should be noted that Christ is not confused by what for some reason confuses many Protestants, namely, that "God is Spirit: and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24).98 If we understand these words as they are interpreted in the book under consideration, then we can conclude that even during the earthly life of the Lord, He, God who appeared in the flesh: "God appeared in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), should not have given worship expressed physically. But the Lord does not tell the Samaritan healed by Him that "God is a spiritual being"99 and therefore "the worship of God must be spiritual",100 He does not raise him from his knees, on the contrary, the cleansed leper hears in response these words of Christ: "Have not ten been cleansed? Where are the nine? how did they not return to give glory to God, except this foreigner?" (Luke 17:17-18). As we can see, it was fitting for the rest of the healed to give glory to Christ God in the same way as the Samaritan, "for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, at the moment of the Incarnation, the Word hypostasizes human nature, which becomes as much His own as His divine nature. The hypostasis of Christ becomes henceforth and forever common to His two natures – Divine and human. Therefore, the entire life of mankind in Christ, including suffering and death, is the content of the life of the Divine Person, everything that the human nature of the Savior endures belongs to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Everything that He endures He Himself endures according to His human nature. Thus, while there is a real distinction between the Divine and human natures in the God-man, there is in Him a single personal center, a single "I," conscious of Himself in the duality of natures, being the subject of all the states of human nature.101 Therefore, the worship of Christ is not the worship of His humiliated flesh, as Rogozin writes,102 but the worship of the Saviour Himself as a Person. In the same way, the icon of Christ depicts not His human nature, but His Person,103 which united in Himself "inseparably and inseparably," in the words of the Chalcedonian oros, the Divine and human natures. The holiness of the icon is in its haraktere: "On the icon of Christ, next to the Face of Christ, there is no other hypostasis. On the contrary, it is the very face of Christ, or His image of the harakter, which, thanks to the appearance of His appearance, shines on the icon and is venerated on it."104 In explaining this type of presence, St. Theodore the Studite (759-826), a well-known defender of the veneration of icons, turned to the analogy of the signet and its imprint: the image of Christ is venerated on an icon because of its resemblance to its prototype,105 even if this resemblance is very remote (for example, if the iconographer is an inexperienced master). But in most cases, fidelity to the prototype is such that an Orthodox believer can easily recognize the most revered saints on icons, not to mention the Mother of God and the Savior. An icon is connected with its prototype not by virtue of identity with his personality, but by virtue of the fact that it depicts the features of his personality and bears his name. Thanks to this connection, "the honor given to the image goes back to the prototype".106 And therefore "he who worships an icon worships the hypostasis of what is depicted on it".107 At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between worship as a complete service (latreya), which is due to be rendered only to God, and worship as a reward of honor – reverent worship108 (timesehe proskunesis): the Seventh Ecumenical Council decreed "... to honor them [the holy icons – M.O.] with kissing and reverent veneration,"109 but "not with that true service according to our faith, which befits the Divine nature alone."110 In order to clarify the difference between these concepts, the Seventh Ecumenical Council referred to a passage from the writings of St. Anastasius, Bishop Anastasius. Theopolsky: "We worship both holy men and angels, but we do not serve them as gods, for Moses says: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him alone shalt thou serve. Look: at the word "serve" it is added "One", but not added to the word "worship". This means that it is not possible to worship God, because worship is an expression of reverence, and it is impossible to serve anyone but God."111