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

Chapter VI Veneration of Saints in the Orthodox Church

… pray for one another...:

the fervent prayer of the righteous can do much.

James. 5:16.

About the prayerful appeal to the saints and the Virgin Mary, Pavel Rogozin writes: "With the death and resurrection of Christ, we have only the "One Mediator" and the "mediator of the New Testament of Jesus." Christ acquired this intercession at a high price: by His sufferings and death on the Cross. Thus, there is only "one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (Heb. 9:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:5-6)"112. The following conclusion is drawn below: "All other mediators have become superfluous from the moment Christ ascended, sat down at the right hand of God the Father, to intercede for us".113 Here we see another confirmation of Rogozin's ignorance of the Church's teachings. The Orthodox Church does not teach that the Mother of God or the saints replace Christ or participate in the work of redemption as co-redeemers. Rogozin writes: "People began to turn to the Virgin Mary with prayers as a faithful "mediator", "intercessor and intercessor" of the human race before God. And strange as it may seem, the slightest deviation from such a view is considered "sectarian," "heretical," and even "blasphemous" even in our time."114 Calling the Mother of God the Intercessor and Intercessor of the Christian race, turning to the saints in prayer for intercession, the Church by no means puts them in the place of Christ. The mediation of Christ is not abolished by the Church's faith in the help of the saints. If we read more attentively those verses of the New Testament to which Pavel Rogozin draws the reader's attention, we will notice: when we say that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself up for redemption (emphasis added). – M.O.) of all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6),115 the Apostle has in mind the mediation of Christ in the great work of the Great Redemption. Indeed, in the mystery of the Redemption, in the matter of reconciling man with God, Christ is the only Mediator, He is the only intercessor in the sacrificial feat, but not in prayers. Confirmation of the correctness of this understanding of these passages can be seen in the same Apostle, when he asks entire Christian communities to pray for him: "I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayers for me to God" (Romans 15:30); "Brethren! pray for us" (1 Thess. 5:25). The Apostle hopes that the prayers of his addressees will contribute to his deliverance from death: "In Whom we hope that He will deliver him again, with the help of your prayer (emphasis added. – M.O.) for us, that for what has been given to us, through the intercession of many, many may give thanks for us" (2 Corinthians 1:10-11). These words could not have been written by the Apostle if he had not recognized any other intercession, understood here as prayerful assistance, no one's prayer except the prayer of Christ. Thus, the interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:5-6, and also: "He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that because of [His] death, which was to atone for the transgressions committed in the first covenant, those who were called to the eternal inheritance should receive the promised things" (Heb. 9:15)116 in the sense in which Paul Rogozin understands them, is incorrect, since in this case all prayers, including the prayers of living Christians for each other, should be excluded. Let us now dwell on the question of why it is possible to venerate the departed saints.