Letter to Plato, his (spiritual) father, on the veneration of icons

“Letter to Plato, his (spiritual) father, on the veneration of icons” written by St. Theodore the Studite in the form of a personal message to his spiritual mentor Plato, in which he explains why sacred images of Christ and the saints should be venerated. Based on the teachings of the holy fathers, the author substantiates the principles of icon veneration: - the worship given to the icon does not relate to the material (wood, paints), but to the Person depicted on the icon. The icon acts as a “window” or “likeness” through which communication with the prototype occurs; - distinguishing between natural and man-made images. In both cases there is one worship of the prototype - either due to the identity of nature, or the identity of the Person; - the difference between the worship of service, which befits only God, and the veneration that is given to icons and saints. The substance of an icon in itself is not an object of Divine service. St. Theodore gives examples such as the reflection of a face in a mirror or the imprint of the royal seal on various materials. These analogies show that the likeness or image remains outside the material itself and is the cause of veneration. Denying the veneration of the icons of Christ is tantamount to denying the truth of His Incarnation and destroys the entire economy of salvation. The icon of Christ is evidence of His real coming in the flesh and His describability by human nature. The letter ends with the statement that Divine grace dwells in the icon, and it imparts sanctification to those who approach it with faith. * Title of the work in Greek: We console ourselves when we speak with our sacred head. For what is more comforting for a son than to talk with his father, especially with one so great that his virtue is glorified by many cities, countries and islands? This is my dear father, although the fruit is not like a tree due to the worthlessness of my humility. But we have in you a set example of piety - and not only we, but all those who have chosen a pious lifestyle are inspired with courage and encouraged to successfully improve. But since for a long time your shrine has demanded that I explain how the sacred image of Christ should be venerated, not because you do not know (this), but wanting thereby to motivate my unreasonable word; however, so far I have not been able to answer. Now, having remembered, I decided that I should fulfill what was entrusted to me, as far as possible, with the assistance of your sacred prayers, although perhaps I have sufficiently expressed something about the same (subject) in another place. So, every artificial image is a likeness of that (object) of which it serves as an image, and in itself, through reproduction, shows the outline of the prototype, as Dionysius, skilled in divine things, says: truth is in the likeness, the prototype is in the image; each of the two in each of the two, excluding differences of essence. So, he who worships an image worships the one whom the image faithfully represents. For he does not worship the essence of the image, but what is inscribed on it - and in relation to the identity of worship, the image is inseparable from the prototype, for in relation to similarity the image is identical with the prototype. Therefore, Basil the Great (speaks) in such a way that the image of a king is called a king, and (however) not two kings. For neither power is cut, nor glory is divided. For just as the dominion and power that rule us is one, so the praise we send is one, and not many. Therefore, the honor of the image goes to the prototype. If it goes to the prototype, then not one and the other, but one and the same thing happens, veneration and worship, as one and the same prototype, which is worshiped in the image. But one is a natural image, and the other is (an image obtained) through reproduction. One, in comparison with the cause, has not a natural difference, but a personal one, like the Son in relation to the Father, for there is one Person of the Son, and another of the Father, but the nature is obviously one. The other, on the contrary, has a natural difference, but not a personal one, like the image of Christ in relation to Christ (Himself). One is the nature of the substance of the image, and the other is the nature of Christ; the face is not different, but one and the same (Face) of Christ, even if it was inscribed on the icon, since the same divine Basil again says: what is the image by reproduction, here is the Son by nature; and just as in works of art there is similarity in appearance, so in divine and uncomplicated nature there is unity due to the community of the Divine. Notice the difference: in the natural image and cause, that is, in the Father and the Son, as there is one nature, so there is one worship due to the identity of nature, and not personality. Since we confess that the Holy Trinity has one nature, then (we confess that it belongs to) one worship and glorification, but there are three Persons: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the image reproduced by art, and in the prototype, that is, in Christ and in the image of Christ (after all, there is one Face of Christ), there is one worship - accordingly, obviously, the identity of a single Person, although the natures of Christ and the image are different. If we say that there is one worship of the image and the prototype - both in accordance with the identity of the Person, and in accordance with the identity of nature, and do not recognize the difference between the image and the depicted, but there will be both one Person and one nature of the image of Christ and Christ Himself - then we will fall into Hellenic polytheism, deifying every substance used to depict the image of Christ. And with this we will open the mouth of the iconoclasts to rightly accuse us of the fact that, while we worship the one God in three Persons, we worship and venerate many gods. If someone again says that neither by the identity of the face, nor by the identity of the nature, the worship (rendered to) the image does not relate to the prototype, then, obviously, he has cut the power and separated the glory of the prototype from the image and, thus, worshiping the image of Christ, clearly idolizes, introducing not one, but two worships. This is what the iconoclasts are trying to prove; but, as is natural, denying on this basis that Christ is describable according to the flesh, they are convicted of wickedness, like those who teach that God dwelt with people on earth in ghost and imagination. But let the wickedness of both be equally cast down into their characteristic darkness. The true faith of Christians, as already said earlier, both in the Holy Trinity confesses one worship due to the community of the Divinity, and in relation to the image of Christ recognizes the same worship, according to the identity of the Face of Christ. For worship is given to one and the same Person, even if it were inscribed, otherwise it would not be an image, but some object that exists independently, if in relation to honor it were separated and torn off from the prototype. And thus, finally, in the veneration of the icon of Christ there is only adoration and glorification of the zealously glorified and blessed Trinity. Perhaps someone will say the following: since worship is service, therefore, service is offered to the icon of Christ, along with the Holy Trinity. But such a person seems to know no difference in worship: we worship the saints, but do not provide them with divine service; and although they are recognized as (our) leaders in the law of God, they are not given divine service. Then, let him also know that worship is not of the essence of 1 image, for this is alien (to us) and is the work of servants of the creature besides the Creator; but when in the image of Christ worship is given to Christ, the substance of the image remains completely unparticipated in the worship that is given to Christ (depicted) on it - for the sake of that likeness that belongs to the Face of Christ and which is (thought of) separately from the substance, although it is visible in it. And this, it seems to me, is similar to the example of (a likeness reflected) in a mirror, since here too the face of the beholder is, as it were, outlined (in the mirror), but the likeness remains outside the substance. And if someone wanted to kiss his image (located) there, he would not kiss the substance, because he is not there for the sake of it (in front of the mirror), but the likeness of himself reflected in it; That's why he clung to the substance. Of course, if he moves away from the mirror, then the image will retreat along with it, as having nothing in common with the substance of the mirror. In the same way (one should reason) regarding the substance of the image: if the likeness that was visible on it and to which worship was destroyed is destroyed, then the substance remains without veneration, as having nothing in common with the likeness. Then, let there be a ring on which the image of the king is inscribed, and let it be impressed on wax, on resin, on clay. The print, of course, will be the same and unchanged on all substances, but substances are different from each other; (print) and could not help but remain unchanged on various (substances), as having nothing to do with materials; but, separated from them by thought, she remains on the ring. In the same way, the likeness of Christ, no matter what substance it is inscribed on, has (nothing) in common with the substance on which it is represented, remaining in the Person of Christ to Whom it belongs. And - to put it briefly - divine veneration is not shown to the icon of Christ, but to Christ, to whom worship is given in it; and it must be worshiped for the sake of the identity of the Face of Christ, despite the difference in the essence of the icon. Thus, it seems to me that the veneration of the icon of Christ is based on the teachings of the holy fathers. If (veneration) is destroyed, the economy of Christ is destroyed along with it; and if worship is not given to the icon, the worship of Christ is destroyed in the same way. And therefore, holy father, we must approach and worship it (i.e., the icon) with fear and reverence, since the worship passes to Christ; and one must believe that divine grace dwells in it, and that it imparts sanctification to those who approach it with faith. For both in the image of the Life-giving Cross, and in the icon of the All-Holy Mother of God and all the saints, all sanctifying veneration of icons through the mediation of the prototypes (depicted) on them ascends to God. And therefore, one and only one divine worship (is given) to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, for whose sake (it turns out) there are different worships for others and to which all other worships relate. If, out of ignorance, I said something erroneously - either less than what should have been said, or more, then you, as a good father, deign to correct one thing, make up another, and destroy another, praying and praying intensely for my humility, so that I would think correctly, speak without stumbling, and act without deserving blame. You might be interested in: