The teaching of St. Theodore the Studite on the veneration of icons

Subject: "Patrology" Scientific supervisor: (Speaker S. priestly teacher) “Where are those who say that suffering for the icon of Christ is not martyrdom?... how glorious is the martyrdom of those who did not renounce Christ” 1. The human world of the 20th, and even more so the 21st century, is a world of images. A person is surrounded by a variety of images in all spheres of his life: public and private. Modern means of mass communication, which are based on imaginative thinking, have a huge impact on the human soul. The stratification in the consciousness of the average person between the real world and the virtual world, the world of labels, commercials and prejudices, is becoming increasingly stronger. Sooner or later, the Church will have to explain to a person how to live in such a world, how to understand and evaluate the role of the image in his life. This is all the more necessary because the concept of image is originally inherent in Christianity and, at the same time, occupies one of the central places in the Church’s teaching about God, because the Son of God is the image of His Father, and man himself is the image and likeness of God. “Not a single branch of theological doctrine can be isolated from the problem of image” 2. And who else but the Church can give an answer to the question about the image, given that while the secular world is increasingly filled with artificial images, Orthodox churches have been filled with icon images for fifteen hundred years. It is the theology of the icon that is called upon to teach the contemporary that there are no neutral images, there are no simply good or bad pictures. Every image carries within itself great power of influence. After all, behind every image there is a prototype, and it is in its image that it is revealed to the perceiver. The purpose of the image is to connect a person with his prototype, to attach him to it. If the image is an icon of passion, an image of sin that attracts the beholder, then with all its power it poisons the human soul. And on the contrary, if this is the image of Christ, then it is capable of introducing the beholder according to his faith to Divine grace. The revelation of the prototype in the image, the connection through the icon with the image, communion with the prototype - these are the main themes on which the theology of the icon is based. It is no coincidence that heated controversy developed around them in the era of iconoclasm. Through the works of icon venerators, such as St. John of Damascus, St. Andrew of Crete, Saints Herman, Tarasius and Nicephorus and, of course, St. Theodore the Studite, the theology of the icon acquired its complete form by the time of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. St. Theodore the Studite and Patr. Nikephoros were the last prominent theologians of the era of iconoclasm who wrote about the icon and finally expressed the doctrine about it 3. In this case, the exceptional role of St. Theodore is that he paid special attention to the Christological foundations of icon veneration and in this he surpassed other icon apologists 4 . It is traditionally believed that the systematizer of theology in the 8th century was St. John of Damascus. So here's the Rev. Theodore is also a systematizer of the teachings of the Church, but not in general, but narrowly regarding the icon. His goal was a balanced presentation of the achievements of the theology of the icon in the language of the Chalcedonian faith, which, by the way, did not quite work out for St. John. Therefore, it seems that it would be desirable to verify the presentation of the section on icon veneration in manuals on dogmatic theology not only according to St. John, but maybe even more so according to St. Theodora. Moreover, he consistently analyzes and thereby clarifies the premises of the theology of the iconoclasts, and consequently their Christological foundations. Behind the dispute about the describability and indescribability of Christ, the continuation of a protracted dispute about His human nature is revealed. Therefore, the study of the works of St. Theodora expands the understanding of the late stage of Christological disputes. Thus, for modern Orthodox theological science, a careful study of the works of St. Theodore the Studite seems very important. However, a systematic presentation of his teaching on the icon in the Russian Theological School in a satisfactory volume has not yet been done. Studying the personality of St. Theodore and his role in the era of iconoclastic disputes from pre-revolutionary authors are devoted to two solid monographs: Dobroklonsky and Gross, as well as Preobrazhensky’s book about St. Theodore and an article in the preface to the publication of his works in the series of Works of the Saints in Russian translation. Among modern authors there is a fairly careful analysis of the teachings of St. Theodora in Bychkov’s book “A Small History of Byzantine Aesthetics. Kyiv, 1991." Among Western scientists, one can cite Schönborn’s book “The Icon of Christ. Milan-Russia, 1999.” Detailed bibliography on the current state of studying the heritage of St. Theodora is contained in the work Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. 1998. Dobroklonsky's monograph “Rev. Theodore. His era, life and work. Odessa, 1913. in vol. II.” contains a very lengthy presentation of the external side of the life of the Studite, while the systematization of the doctrine of icons is completely absent. Dobroklonsky’s contribution to the study of the saint’s works is the systematization of the entire block of letters of the holy father, the construction of a chronology of their writing and the establishment of the authenticity of the letters based on the advanced achievements of science of that time. In addition, the author provides a list of all works related to the study of St. Theodora by 1913. In the main part of the work there is one chapter devoted to the presentation of the development of the theology of the icon before St. Theodore, but it is not of an independent, concise nature, as the author himself says 5. In the book of the priest, N. Grossu “Reverend Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kyiv, 1907" along with a presentation of the historical outline of the saint’s life, an overview of his works and an analysis of his teaching about the icon is given. To this day, this remains the most complete presentation of the views of the monk in the Russian language. However, this presentation is superficial in some places; there are omissions, for example the teaching of St. Theodore's talk about “contemplation” is not touched upon at all. Most of all, the book lacks clear conclusions on the reverend’s system of views; instead, he offers general words of a panegyric nature. But Grossu successfully analyzes the system of concepts of the theology of St. Theodora. Bychkov in the chapter dedicated to St. Theodoru quite thoroughly and clearly sets out the understanding of the terms “likeness” and “mimetic image,” which forms the core of the doctrine of the icon, but the conclusions he draws are not entirely objective. Schönborn, speaking about St. Theodore, reveals the most important component of the saint’s Christology – his teaching about the Face of Christ. The most complete presentation of Studite's views is given in the book Κορναρακη; here he takes a versatile approach to both the analysis of premises and the systematic presentation of the material. He does this taking into account both Greek and European literature about St. Theodore. In general, the book is written at a high modern level and is in many ways a generalization of the modern stage of research into the works of the monk. Some valuable thoughts from it are contained in this work in the section on the Christological premises of the iconoclasts. This topic has not been considered at all by Russian-speaking authors. Due to the general lack of both systematic works on the period of iconoclasm, and monographs about representatives of this period in Russian, including about St. Theodore, the purpose of this work is to present the system of his views on icon veneration. St. Theodore is a multifaceted personality, and for him veneration of icons is also multifaceted in its aspects: for example, liturgical, epistemological, or even canonical. This work examines only one central aspect - the dogmatic one, with special attention paid to the Christological prerequisites of the teachings of St. Theodora. About a third of the volume of the work is occupied by an attempt to systematically generalize the development of the theology of the icon before St. Theodora. Here we examine the development of one key idea - the theme of the revelation of the prototype in its own image. Here the problems of the second iconoclasm and the difference in the Christological foundations of the two waves of iconoclasm are revealed. In this way it is most convenient to show the relevance of the saint’s works for his time and for modern researchers. The rest of the work is a consistent presentation of the teachings about the icon of St. Theodore, presented in the unfolding of his initial premises. The main purpose of such a presentation is to identify the central ideas and terminological basis of his theology. 1. Review of the stages of development of the theology of the icon The purpose of writing this historical review is, first of all, to establish the broadest initial terminological basis of the dispute about icons. In addition, the research problem of this work and a specific research question are formulated here, which in the main part of the work, based on the analysis of the works of St. Theodore the Studite, by constructing a system of his teaching about icons, the answer is given. The concept of “icon” in Church Tradition is always accompanied by the most important problem: what place does the image of Christ and His saints occupy in the prayer life of Christianity. Eusebius of Caesarea also asks this question to the sister of Constantine the Great: who does she want to worship on the icon. “Of course, you are looking for an icon depicting Him in the form of a servant and in the flesh with which He clothed Himself for our sake; but we are taught that it too is dissolved by the glory of the Divine and mortal is swallowed up by life” 6. For him, the question is why such an icon is needed at all, which depicts the sensually visible features of Christ glorified and ascended to heaven. And he himself answers negatively, considering it an unnecessary surplus. This broad problem in practice in the history of theological polemics “for” and “against” the use of icons in the life of the Church has been reduced to the question of how, in general, the iconographic image relates to the prototype depicted on it. The corresponding understanding of the icon as either an idol that strives to take the place of the worshiped God, or a simple symbolic reminder of the depicted person, or a vessel of Divine energies, or even a place of hypostatic revelation of God Himself depended on the solution of this issue in one direction or the other. Long before the start of direct debate about icons, the ground was already being prepared in the works of the church fathers for understanding the concept of image in relation to Triadology, Christology and anthropology. This process is based on the words of St. Scriptures that Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), and that “He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6), but at the same time took “the form of a servant,” who in turn was also created “in the image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). Due to the extreme breadth of the topic of the development of Orthodox theology of the image as a whole, the author identifies two periods unequal in scope, the boundary of which is the beginning of the second wave of iconoclasm or simply the second iconoclasm associated with the date of the council of 815. Moreover, in the first period, the milestones of the development of only one, most important in the author’s opinion, idea of ​​​​the revelation of the prototype in its image are considered. In the second period, the problematic, theological foundations of the disputing parties and their development during the time of the second iconoclasm are examined in more detail and the formulation of both the main question of this period is directly about the relationship between the image and the prototype, and the Christological prerequisites of the new iconoclasm. Together, this arrangement will make it possible to more accurately understand the general trend of the teachings of St. Theodore, and certain private aspects of his teaching. 1.1. Development of the concept of image by the time of ΙΙ iconoclasm The development of the theology of the image was initially greatly influenced by Neoplatonism 7 . In the teachings of the Neoplatonists, two important prerequisites can be noted in relation to the understanding of the image: 1) The entire universe is initially hierarchical, stepwise, and the difference between these steps is so great that they are completely isolated from each other in essence. 2) The highest goal of human life is the achievement of the One 8. In relation to understanding the image, it is also important that matter itself for Neoplatonism is the lowest form of existence. However, it is material symbols that reveal knowledge about the higher degrees of being. “Hence their relative concept of the image as a means of access to the divine prototype” 9. For Neoplatonism itself, the concept of “image” was necessary, because It would be impossible to ascend apophatically to the Divine, Who is fundamentally unknowable, if “that which follows Him on the level of the essential and knowable did not express Him, but on a lower level” 10 . Dionysius the Areopagite accepted the Neoplatonist doctrine of the image and was one of the first to attempt to Christianize it. According to his teaching, in the spiritual hierarchy leading a person to the knowledge of God, only rational beings - individuals - participate as the image of God, while the Neoplatonists included the entire creation in general in this process 11. After all, in general, the ascetic patristic tradition is not characterized by abstract constructions due to the exceptional attention of the holy fathers to the life of the soul. So in the Areopagite, he accepts Christ as the perfect image, as “the image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Further on, at a lower level of the hierarchy of images, there is man - the image and likeness of God. For all his penchant for philosophizing, the heavenly and earthly hierarchies consist of rational creatures who participate in the process of constant knowledge of God and represent the image of the Creator. 12 In the system of the hierarchy of images of Dionysius, the connection of the stages with each other and in general with the First Cause is only relative and is not open to interpenetration. “God as such is not like anything, but He gives God’s likeness to those who turn to Him, so that they, to the best of their ability, imitate the Being beyond all limit and word. ...This should be called similar to God and existing “in the divine image and likeness” 13 . In the literal sense of the word, only things of the same order can be similar to each other, in which case it is possible to “turn their similarity in both directions,” which is fundamentally impossible for phenomena of different orders because “We cannot allow the causes... and consequences of such reciprocity” 14. The lower levels are connected with the higher ones through symbols that contain, as it were, a trace of the prototype. The concept of “symbol” in Dionysius is very broad and includes “sign, image, image, beauty and a number of other concepts” 15. On the material level, in general, all knowledge about the highest truths is contained in symbols, as he says: “everything about heavenly beings is decently conveyed to us in symbols” 16. Moreover, these symbols “at best are means of educating the soul while it is still at the lower stages of its ascent to the divine” 17. Such a symbol is in no way involved in the prototype precisely due to the insurmountable distance of the entities, and is just its reflection. Thus, the Neoplatonic understanding of the image, even applied to the Christian image, is equally based on two main positions: 1) the symbol (image) is in no way involved in the essence of the prototype and 2) despite this, the symbol “relatively” reflects the prototype in itself. It is noteworthy that when Rev. Theodore the Studite needed to argue for the difference in essence between the image and the prototype; very often he turned specifically to the statements of the Areopagite. Other icon venerators did the same. This fundamental truth, that the image is not equal in essence to the prototype, has not changed over time. The second point about the reflection of the prototype is a further tradition, starting with St. Maximus the Confessor, significantly supplemented with the concept of the revelation of the Prototype in her Image, when it came to Christ - the image of the Father. In the pre-Justinian era, one can trace some more approaches to determining the relationship between the icon and what is depicted on it, as well as understanding the place of the icon in the Church. In the statements of the Cappadocian fathers and theologians close to them of that time, the icon, as well as church art in general, is given a place of educational, spiritual, edifying or educational assistance along with other types of church preaching 18. Thus, Saint Basil the Great sees in the image more convincing power than in his own words: he ends his conversation on the day of the holy martyr Barlaam with an appeal to the painters - “the great-voiced trumpets of teachers” with a call to glorify the martyr in a higher language 19. Such a comparison of words and images, as well as the Holy Scriptures with church paintings, is characteristic of St. Vasily: “...valor shown in battles was often depicted by both historical writers and painters, some adorning them with words, others depicting them in pictures; and by this both of them aroused many to courage. What the narrative word conveys through hearing, painting shows silently through imitation” 20. In the West, the exponent of this idea is, for example, St. Peacock of Nolan (c. 353 – c. 431). In the churches he built, he always ordered paintings with biblical themes to be painted on the walls, knowing that images would influence not only believers, but also those preparing for baptism, more than oral preaching. Saint Gregory of Nyssa praises a strong role model in iconographic subjects. He writes very vividly about the icon of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac: “Many times I looked at the icon of this passion... and not without tears I approached this picture, for this art clearly introduces me to the contemplation of this event” 22. The important thing is that for these fathers the icon, like other types of church painting, do not differ significantly from similar secular paintings. The only difference is in the subject of the image. An example of this is the classic comparison of the icon with the image of the emperor, which shows this relationship. The analogy with the emperor and the veneration of his image also served as a means of theological polemics. Explaining how it is possible for the Son, the image of the Father, to be one with Him in nature, and accordingly in Divine dignity and worship, St. Vasily says: “Although the image of the emperor is called the emperor, yet there are not two emperors, because neither the power is divided, nor the power is divided; for just as the ruler and dominion that governs us is one, so our praise is one, and not many. Therefore, the honor of the image passes to the prototype” 23. This statement of the saint was later actively quoted by defenders of icons, seeing in it an expression of the theology of the image. If the Son-Image is one with the Proto-Image-Father, then by analogy the material image is in some respect one with its prototype 24 . The above words of the Saint express an understanding of the relationship between the icon and the prototype - in the communion of honor. In more detail, from this understanding of communication follows, for example, the opinion about the dishonor of the Prototype in the case of dishonor of the image, i.e. some “reciprocity” of honor. Later, this theme of communication between image and prototype was carefully developed by the fathers. Then, following St. Athanasius the Great thought of the icon only as an appearance, the external features of the prototype “...its image and appearance” with a unity of name 25. St. Maximus the Confessor was one of the first to recognize the reciprocal relationship between the image and the Prototype 26. As an interpreter of the Areopagite, he supplemented and rethought his teaching about the image, completely churching it through agreement with the precise terminologically and doctrinally Christology of the Cappadocian fathers and the Chalcedonian faith. The union of natures in Christ is free. Just as in the Holy Trinity, there is no place for necessity or the oppression of natural circumstances. In Christian theology, a person is completely free even in relation to his nature, so that “he freely hypostasizes his nature... and is what he wants to be and always acts as he wants” 27. The hypostases of the Trinity freely possess a single nature and a single action, constantly opening towards each other 28 . Likewise, in Christ there is no place for the violence of the Divine over human freedom. His human will, inherent in human perfect nature, merges into a single action not by force, but by voluntary union with the will of God. His Divine Hypostasis freely, after the incarnation, possesses perfect human life, manifests itself in “human likeness” (Heb. 2:17) and is actually human. At the same time, the opposite conclusion is also true: the human existence of Christ is a genuine manifestation in Himself of the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity, i.e. revelation. St. Maxim says: “In appearance He was similar to us; for, in His boundless love for people, He, without changing (his God-being), took upon himself created nature and thereby became the image (τύπος) and symbol of Himself. From Himself He symbolically showed Himself; Having made Himself Visible, He brought all creation through Himself to Himself, Invisible and completely Hidden” 29. This statement contains the essence of the Christological understanding of the image. Christ Himself became the Image, the “icon of love” for his disciples and for all Christians 30. He became the image of Himself, i.e. showed the way to the Father through Himself, in Himself, through His love for man. Thus, the mediastinum of sin was destroyed and the possibility of full communication between man and God was opened. At the Christological level, this is an unshakable justification for the possibility of the existence of the image of God, who took on human traits, which would, by its appearance, confirm the possibility of such communication with God, because it was in this human form that the life of God deigned to be concluded. The expression of this Christology in the theology of the image immediately before the iconoclastic era was the decrees of the Council of Trula in 692 on images. Three rules of the Council concern images: 73,82,100. The most important 82nd rule, which prohibited allegorical images of Christ and decided to depict the incarnate Word only in His own human form, such as it is captured on the pages of Holy Scripture and in the tradition of the Church, since it is this appearance of the “man Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5) that most perfectly and fully expresses the essence of both the incarnation of God and the salvation of mankind. The rule sharply contrasts the Old and New Testaments. “Honoring the ancient images and shadows devoted to the Church, as signs and designs of truth, we honor grace and truth higher, as the fulfillment of the law” 31. The truth of the New Testament lies precisely in God’s humility and incarnation, in which God took on flesh. “The Fifth-Sixth Council marked the end of the dogmatic struggle of the Church for the correct confession of two natures, divine and human, in the Person of Jesus Christ. This was the time when “piety is already clearly preached by us,” as stated in the 1st rule of this Council... It was necessary not only to say, but also to show (the truth of the doctrine of the Incarnation)..." 32. However, this turned out to be not at all easy, and less than 40 years after the Trull Cathedral, the most serious apology for this seemingly already established and dogmatized practice of icon painting and icon veneration was required. St. John of Damascus, the largest defender of icons of the first wave of iconoclasm, in his polemical works formulates and summarizes the issues that, in his opinion, provoked the emergence of heresy. Systematization and classification of the questions of heretics, quoted in the works of the monk, shows that the iconoclasts brought forward accusations mainly on the following points: ü The Old Testament prohibition on depicting God ü Icon veneration is sharply equated on various grounds with idolatry ü Icon veneration is the worship of matter instead of God ü Icons of saints are not comparable in content to images of God 33 The iconoclastic party received strong Christological foundations in the polemic against icons after the council of 754, largely through the theological and administrative efforts of Emperor Constantine V. He not only organized this council, but also offered it a consistent argumentation of iconoclastic ideas 34 . In general, as the discussion developed, both the starting premises and the system of argumentation on both sides changed 35. Before the council of 754, the bulk of the accusations were arguments from the Holy Scripture. Scripture and “common sense.” This initial stage of the polemic, when the discussion was not yet actively about Christological foundations, relates primarily to Patr. Hermann. It was he who was forced to be the first to respond to heresy as patriarch. His arguments in favor of the need for an icon as a whole are not original. He repeats popular words about the educational significance of the icon: the icon is a guide for those who are unable to rise to “spiritual contemplation”, a means of inciting jealousy to imitate those depicted. An icon is also an expression of love for the saints, as a reminder, like the images of relatives that people keep. In essence, only two statements have polemical weight: 1) the antiquity of the tradition of icon veneration, 2) numerous evidence of their miraculousness 36 . The most important argument in defense of icons in the surviving works of St. Herman is precisely the fact of the miracle-working of icons, i.e. implementation of a really tangible connection with God through a material image 37 . St. John of Damascus developed in particular detail, like no one before him, the doctrine of matter and its sanctifying role in the economy of salvation. His doctrine of matter can be understood as a substantiation of the experience of communication with God. “Damascene justifies the possibility of sacred icon painting with conclusions from the general idea of ​​the relationship between the spiritual and the material, the invisible and the visible, as it is revealed to us in the light of the Incarnation” 38. Damascus laid a solid foundation for Christology in the basis of the doctrine of the icon, summarizing the experience of the entire previous era of Christological disputes. In Christology, he focuses on the doctrine of the Incarnation, the deification of humanity in Christ, the sanctification of His flesh, and the communion of the properties of two natures. “When the invisible one, having put on flesh, becomes visible, then depict the likeness of Him who appeared. When He, who, because of the superiority of His nature, was deprived of quantity, and quality, and magnitude, Who, being in the form of God, took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7), through this became limited in quantitative and qualitative respects and was clothed in a bodily image, then inscribe on the boards and expose for contemplation He who willed to appear” 39 . By virtue of hypostatic unity, “the flesh became the Word, without losing what it is” 40, so that “the body of God is God” 41. Citing the very common example of red-hot iron in fire, the monk speaks of the deification of Christ’s flesh as “unity” and “communion.” In this he is very much in tune with St. Maximus the Confessor and in general with the entire tradition of the “neochalcedonians” 42. The communication of natures and their properties (communication idiomatum) is expressed, for example, in a classic way for the entire Christological tradition, starting with St. Cyril of Alexandria, interchangeability of names in Christ. From the same root—the communion of natures—grows the doctrine of the revelation of God in the human face of Christ. The Lord’s flesh is completely deified and sanctified, therefore “everything human is already a living image of the Divine” 43. From this revelation of God in human traits, St. John makes two important points. Firstly, after Christ’s bodily ascension to heaven, His image is a “reminder”, one along with other descriptions (the Gospel, for example) of the historical, real Incarnation. Secondly, the deification of matter, in principle, through union with God in the face of Christ is the basis for a fundamentally new doctrine of the icon as an image of the visible features of the Lord’s face. The substance itself has ceased to be low and, following the example of the sanctifying Divine power of the body of Christ, can become a vessel of Divine energies. The monk says that he is ready to honor the Gospel, the Cross, Golgotha, the cane, the spear, etc., “because through them and in them God deigned to accomplish our salvation” 44 . This is especially true for the image of Christ, since through the inscription of His face on the board, the inscription of His name and consecration, the icon becomes a vessel and conductor of Divine mercy and stands on a par with the relics of holy saints. Thus, the icon becomes a genuine revelation of God through communion with His grace, connected with the material of the icon: wood, paints, etc. In a similar way, all the saints “these are those who, as far as possible, have become like God, both as a result of their own will and God’s presence and assistance - those who are truly called even gods, not by nature, but by grace, just as iron heated in fire is called fire not by nature, but by position and participation in the fire” 45. In this sense, we should honor each other as “having our inheritance in God and created in the image of God.” And such honor naturally goes back to the source of all good - God. One can understand the teaching of St. John of Damascus, as an expression of the entire previous tradition of the doctrine of revelation. God revealed himself in His appearance once, but even now He reveals Himself in a similar divine-human way in His grace through the matter of the sacraments, the Holy. relics, Christian shrines and icons. It is especially important to note here that the possibility of such a revelation of God is entirely based on the achievements of the entire previous “neo-Chalcedonian” tradition in the doctrine of the union of natures in Christ and the communicatio idiomatum. This is important to note because the defenders of the icons of the second iconoclasm, represented by the largest figures of St. Nikephoros and, first of all, St. Theodora will change both the general tone of the argumentation of icon veneration and the terminology of their polemics. 1.2. Issues of Iconoclasm II The beginning of the second wave of iconoclasm is a political action provoked by direct intervention in the church life of Emperor Leo V. As an adherent of the state policy of his iconoclast predecessors, he decided to revive their policy regarding icons 46. In order to justify his actions canonically, the emperor convened a council in 815, which annulled the decisions of the council of 787 and declared the decisions of the council of 754 legal, somewhat supplementing its argumentation 47 . Thus, the cathedral of 815 was intended to become an ideological exponent of the new persecution of icons. The problem of studying the dogmatic foundations of this period is that the acts of the council were destroyed after the restoration of the veneration of icons. The resolutions of the cathedral were preserved only in the retelling of the patriarchs. Nikephoros in his apologetic writings. “The Council, “having strengthened and confirmed the teaching of the Holy Fathers heard by God and following the six Ecumenical Councils,” “condemned the production of icons and their worship that is inconsistent with tradition, or, more accurately, useless, preferring this service in spirit and truth.” Further pointing out that during the reign that passed from man to woman, i.e. Irina, “thanks to female simplicity,” the veneration of “soulless wood,” “soulless icons,” was restored ... abolished the worship of icons established by Patriarch Tarasius, and condemned the lighting of candles and lamps and the offering of incense” 48. In general, as can be concluded from the surviving data about the council, its resolutions in dogmatic content practically do not differ from the resolutions of the council of 754, with the exception of one fundamentally important point: the council “refrained from calling them (icons - author’s note) idols: for one evil is different from another” 49. This fact deserves separate consideration. It is noteworthy that, knowing full well the decisions of this council, apologists for icons of the second wave of iconoclasm continued to respond to the seemingly dropped accusation of idolatry. First of all, this concerns Patras. Nikephoros, who addresses his main work “Three Refutations” specifically to “Mammon” - Copronymus, and not to Leo V, for example, as the organizer of the second iconoclasm. And even Patr. Methodius, in his speech on the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which, summing up the entire period of defense of icons, could have absorbed the whole color of the argumentation of the new period, is limited to the same denial of idolatry. The same applies to the works of St. Theodora Studite. It was from the answer to this accusation that St. Theodore begins the "First Refutation". “No, we do not have only one faith,” says the imaginary heretic, “since the object of your veneration seems to be widely worshiped due to the erection of icons, which passed through demonic evil into the Catholic Church from the Hellenic tradition - to worship idols” 50. The resolution of this apparent contradiction between the demands of the time and the responses of icon-worshippers reveals the deeper background of the dispute about the icons of the second iconoclast, on the one hand, and points to both the different depth of argumentation and the difference in goals in the camp of the icon defenders themselves, on the other. It is noteworthy that the “Sermon on Holy Icons” by St. Methodius in his argumentation completely repeats the argumentation of the VII Ecumenical Council. The role of the icon is summarized by him in three points: 1) a description of the exploits of saints, 2) an explanation of these exploits, 3) a reminder of sacred persons and events 51. This is understandable for the reason that the “Word” is more of an official church-political character than a theological treatise. The triumph of Orthodoxy, as an event regarding icons, was called upon to once again recognize the Ecumenical Council of 787 and thereby glorify the defenders of Orthodoxy over the past century of iconoclasm. Patr. product. Nikephoros in this regard are also politically colored. His “Refutations” are very lengthy and contain a lot of unnecessary information regarding purely theological issues 52 . This is a consequence of the fact that Patr. Nicephorus considered the root of iconoclasm to be the intervention of the emperor in church life, therefore his polemic is centered on precisely this idea of ​​​​the ban on the emperor’s intervention in the Church, and theological arguments often occupy a secondary position and do not differ significantly from those already voiced at the Council of Nicaea 53 . When the conversation was exclusively about theology, it turned out that the accusation of idolatry was not the essence of the accusation, but only a “repetition of the material covered” in order to proceed to the problems that are currently relevant. In the logically coherent works of St. Theodora is exactly like that. In his Refutations, starting with the Second Refutation, he quickly moves away from discussing accusations of idolatry. At the same time, the accusations of idolatry themselves are more rhetorical than substantive and serve as auxiliary questions for the development of the main ideas that constitute the true essence of the new polemic. The main theme that St. Petersburg consistently develops. Theodore, this is certainly the topic of icon worship. Everything else that is contained in his works can be presented in the form of an expanded system of argumentation, which is designed to substantiate as deeply as possible, right down to the most fundamental Christological postulates, precisely the possibility of worshiping an icon. However, without drawing hasty conclusions, it must be admitted that for the iconoclasts of the time of Leo V, an icon in its essence was still no different from an idol, although it was recommended to abstain from the word “idol” itself 54 . This was still justified even purely philologically. They derived the word “ειδωλο” from ειδος (species) and διολου (whole); and “εικονα” from εοικος (similar) 55. “In meaning they are one and the same, because (both) are 56 “types” in general. For what is visible is not reality itself, but only a likeness insofar as it denotes like.”57 An icon in this understanding is a false image of God and, in this sense, an idol. Accordingly, the worship of such an icon is also, albeit conditionally, idolatry. In the end, the iconoclasts of the time of St. Theodore did not stop at quarreling in words and had his own theology of the image as the basis for accusations of “idolatry,” having examined which, more specific conclusions can be drawn. As an alternative to the Orthodox icon, the iconoclasts offered their understanding of the nature of the image and its worship, which is expressed in the same formulations of the Iconoclastic Council of 754. “In it, the fathers of the Iconoclastic Council, first of all, say that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered us from the corrupting teaching of demons, or the delusion of idols, and gave us worship in spirit and truth, which is the worship of the fathers and the teachers of the Church, as well as the six holy Ecumenical Councils, preserved them unchanged until the last days" 58 . Using the Gospel expression about the genuine worship of God “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24), the iconoclasts interpreted it in a sense convenient for themselves and contrasted it with any form of material cult, including the worship of an icon. It is necessary “to rise to the objects themselves..., in order to avoid the base image of matter” 59. The denial of the role of matter, traditional for the first iconoclasm, is present at this stage, although not so persistently. Moreover, such true “worship” is reduced to a kind of “contemplation” (θεωρια). This contemplation, in turn, is no longer a matter of man, but of divine revelation. Thus, the worship of God is placed exclusively in the realm of spiritual mysticism. “Let (the image of Christ) remain in the contemplation of the mind (νουν θεωρια 60), let, as much as possible, some divine image be depicted in us, which is implanted in us by the Holy Spirit through sanctification and justification” 61. During the polemics with icon-worshippers, a significant difference in the understanding of the very term “contemplation” (θεωρια) became clear. St. Theodore the Studite devoted considerable attention to this issue, both in connection with the polemics in his Refutations and in his ascetic writings. To explain how this “mysterious imprinting” of Christ is accomplished through the practice of contemplation, iconoclasts use the concept of “memory,” which, however, does not coincide with the traditional Orthodox understanding of “liturgical remembrance.” “Let it be allowed to represent Christ figuratively, but in accordance with the sacred words handed down from God: “Do this,” He said, in remembrance of me (Luke 12:19), so, obviously, it is not allowed to depict Him except through remembrance. In it, what is depicted is true, and what is depicted is sacred” 62. Iconoclasts persistently emphasize the need for the unconditional “truth” of the image, its accuracy and specificity. Any symbolism is excluded in this case 63 . Such a “true image” (αληθης εικονα), naturally, cannot be anything artificially created by human hands, only the Truth Itself, which is imprinted in the minds of Christians directly, without any material mediation by the Holy Spirit and allows us to contemplate God and worship Him, as well as to preserve Him and carry Him within ourselves through “remembrance.” A significant consequence of the iconoclastic theology of the image is their doctrine of the Eucharist. This teaching evoked a response among icon worshipers and was discussed at the meetings of the VII Ecumenical Council. “Since the iconoclasts considered a true icon only one that was identical to its archetype, then only St. They could recognize the Eucharist as an icon of Christ” 64. “He (Christ) deigned that this bread should become the divine Body, and a true image of His natural flesh” 65. It is noteworthy that here the first part sounds usually, in the spirit of legend, while the second part synonymously says the same thing about the image. “...the God-given image of His Flesh, that is, the divine bread, together with the cup of life-giving Blood that flowed from His side, is filled with the Holy Spirit” 66. The root of the difference in understanding the icon lies in a different understanding of the relationship between the image and the prototype. The iconoclasts, proclaiming and insisting on the unconditional consubstantiality of the true image with the prototype, thereby denied any other form of their connection. An incorrect interpretation of the relationship (σχεσις) between the image and the prototype actually entailed the accusation of the Orthodox of idolatry. “The denial of any connection between the icon and the prototype entailed, by logical development, the alienation of the prototype, i.e. the face of Christ from His artificial image, as a result of this the icon becomes autonomous in the face of Christ and is forced to be considered an idol, and its worship is idolatry” 67 . Thus, the actually professed theology of the image of the iconoclasts clearly contradicts the statement of the council of 815. about what should not be called Orthodox icons idols. This contradiction can be explained if we accept the resolution of the council as, for example, a simple verbal concession to a fairly strong theological apposition of the Orthodox, or in some other way, but in any case, one thing remains true: the discrepancy between the Orthodox and the iconoclasts was preserved at the deepest level, at the level of understanding the very essence of the icon. Later Rev. Theodore precisely formulates this essence in the concept of “relationship in likeness” as opposed to unity in essence. If in relation to Orthodoxy the removal of accusations of idolatry did not have any conciliatory significance and is therefore not important for the development of polemics with the Orthodox, then it is very important in another respect. After all, the iconoclasts of the first period would never have agreed to the removal of charges of idolatry. Looking at the issue from this angle, from within iconoclasm, important conclusions can be drawn. From the statement that an icon is not an idol, for iconoclasm it follows, first of all, that it itself is not completely a figment of fantasy, fiction, a lie, as was said earlier, but carries within itself something truthful, speaks the truth about Christ in the language of painting, describes His real human traits 68 . St. Theodore directly states this fact: “Orthodox: Do you acknowledge that the Son and Word of the Father, after being made flesh, can be described according to the flesh, while remaining indescribable by the nature of the Divinity? Heretic: I agree. How can one not admit it, since the theologian fathers proclaim this. So, Gregory says: “described in body, indescribable in spirit.” Athanasius says: “like God, He is invisibly contemplated by the mind, like a person, he is visibly touched and present in reality” 69. In general, such an easy agreement of the iconoclast to recognize Christ as described and depicted is quite surprising to find at the very beginning of the “Second Refutation” of St. Theodore, since the affirmation of the fundamental indescribability of Christ is the main stumbling block and object of discussion throughout the first period of iconoclasm, starting with the theology of Constantine V and the council of 754. 70 The question arises: what does it mean for an iconoclast to agree to abandon the main thesis of the polemic? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the Christological premises of the teaching of the iconoclasts about the indescribability of Christ in the flesh, formulated at the council of 754. The Iconoclastic Council of 754 introduces the concept of the indescribability of Christ and, on this basis, develops the idea of ​​the impossibility of His image and, accordingly, the worship of this image. The starting premise of the Iconoclastic Council is that Christ does not have a common nature with all other people. His flesh is the same, similar to universal human flesh, but not the same in the literal sense, not one with it. In the first part of the anathematisms in the resolutions of the council, the iconoclasts repeat the general dogmatic formulations of the previous Ecumenical Councils about Christ. They acknowledge that He did not remain outside of “gross matter” and sits together with flesh and soul on the throne of glory. But at the same time, the one who “the indescribable being of God the Word and His hypostasis, as a result of His incarnation, tries to describe in icons in human form” is immediately anathematized. Further, the emphasis is on the hypostasis of the Word and it is said that “the properties of God the Word” cannot be represented in colors. At the same time, the flesh is not separable from the Divine nature “even by thought” and now, after the Ascension, this same Christ, about whom it was said above that He is with the flesh on the throne, is ordered to worship “with all the heart with mental eyes.” In the entire decree, not a word is said about the properties of Christ’s flesh to be described, but it is noted that it is impossible to speak of Him as a perfect man “as if He were a simple man” 72. From this the council draws a direct conclusion that Christ’s humanity is indescribable, because... Descriptibility is a property of “ordinary people”. At the same time, the denial of the describability of Christ's face in His humanity by the iconoclasts was intended to protect them from falling into Nestorianism. Descriptibility is recognized by them exclusively as a property of a person possessing individual traits. If we say that Christ can be described by His human nature, it means thereby introducing into Him a second person – the man Jesus. “If the Word took human nature into its own hypostasis, which is invisible and has no external image, then if it were depicted by means of an outline, another person would be introduced into the hypostasis of Christ” 73. On the other hand, the Divinity, both before and after the incarnation, remained indescribable. “But they say that the Godhead does not remain indescribable while Christ is represented in bodily form. Since the Divinity is united with the flesh in hypostatic unity, then, of necessity, the unlimited, indescribable Divinity is also depicted in the outline of the flesh. For it is impossible to separate one from the other without at the same time introducing an unpleasant division” 74 . That is, the description of the face of the incarnate Christ inevitably entails a description of the Divinity inseparably and inseparably united with humanity. From here, an even deeper Christological premise becomes obvious, which St. Theodore called "Sevirov's confusion" and the inability to "give honor to two births" in Christ. “For them there was an absolute necessity to recognize one nature of the Word, united from two natures and indescribable, due to the fact that one of the properties (i.e., the property of human nature) disappeared” 75. The center of the polemics of the first iconoclasm, therefore, was the question of the flesh of Christ and its properties. Moreover, the iconoclasts were clearly influenced by Monophysite Christology, at least in the doctrine of the human nature of Christ, because “there is an assimilation of the properties of the Divine nature to the humanity of Christ, in particular, the property of indescribability, due to which, according to the iconoclasts, Christ cannot be depicted even by humanity” 76. But the fact of the matter is that the iconoclasts of the second period did not change this fundamental and most important premise at all. The Christology of iconoclasm throughout was homogeneous in this sense and colored in the tones of Monophysitism. This was noticed both by the contemporaries of Constantine 77 and the works of St. Theodora, just like Patr. Nikifor. Moreover, Rev. Theodore devotes almost a third of the volume of his dogmatic works, and first of all the “Refutations,” not to anything, but again to the struggle for the describability of Christ according to humanity, precisely for what the iconoclast, it seems, agreed so willingly at the very beginning. This could remain an inexplicable paradox if the Venerable himself. Theodore did not provide an explanation. The position of the iconoclasts has indeed changed compared to the first iconoclasm. The alleged heretic writes: “If Christ miraculously took on the flesh in his own hypostasis, then it is indescribable, as denoting not any (individual person), but man in general” 78 . “In other words, Christ took upon himself the universal human nature, and not the existence of an individual person. This is why, the iconoclast argument goes, Christ’s human existence is “indescribable.”79 At the moment of incarnation, the Word took upon Himself human nature, nature as a whole, as a general concept in the Platonic system 80. From this they conclude that the individual human traits inherent in Christ do not say anything significant about Him, these are only temporary, largely accidental signs that were naturally overcome in the glorified Christ. It is for this reason that the iconoclasts were not afraid at the new stage to allow the describability of Christ, because all the same, the image of random, even historically accurate features of Christ’s face does not say anything about Him as the incarnate Word, the specific human features of which limited the One of the Trinity. But this is precisely what all icon veneration is based on, as will become obvious from an analysis of the teachings of St. Theodora. “It is no coincidence that Saint Nikephoros the Confessor called the teaching of the iconoclasts “agraptodocetism”” 81. Surprisingly, the premises of the two iconoclasms differ significantly from each other. If at the time of the first it was believed that Christ does not have exactly the same nature as that of all living people due to the absolute deification of the flesh of Christ, then at the time of the second it is argued that the consequence of His incarnation is the perception of human nature in general, which again should explain his absolute Divinity, the fullness of deification only now of such a differently understood nature of Christ. The subtlety of the problem of distinguishing the Christological premises of the two waves of iconoclasm is that, from the outside, the terms around which the dispute developed differed little from each other. It was about the flesh of Christ, its describability, the ability to depict its appearance and worship the icon. But the content hidden behind the apparent similarity was different throughout the turbulent century of iconoclastic disputes. All the theological efforts of St. Theodore aimed at crushing the main Christological support of the second iconoclasm - the doctrine of the “universality” of human nature in Christ. In Christology, he emphasized the individuality of humanity in the hypostasis of Christ. This defines all the key directions of his teaching, defines the terminology and even explains the arrangement of the argument. It was precisely with the refutation of this innovation in the Monophysite Christology of the iconoclasts that St. Theodore begins an exposition of the Orthodox faith. 2. Teaching about icons by St. Theodora Studita In the broadest context, the ultimate goal of all icon veneration as a whole for St. Theodore the Studite is the worship of God the Trinity. “And therefore one and only one divine worship (is rendered) to the holy and consubstantial Trinity, for the sake of which (it turns out) different worships of others and to which all other worships relate." 82 The worship of the entire Holy Trinity became possible only in Christ after the incarnation of the Second Hypostasis. Thus, the worship of God is entirely centered on the person of the Lord incarnate. Consequently, “in the veneration of the icon of Christ there is only adoration and glorification of the zealously glorified and blessed Trinity.” 83 The entire multifaceted system of views of the monk on the veneration of icons is thus reduced to the justification in the face of heresy of one single truth of worship of God in His icon and is essentially built into a long chain of arguments justifying this worship. Before presenting the system of icon veneration, it is necessary to outline the circle of the most important terms on which this system is built. 2.1. Terminology St. Theodora Studita The key terms around which the entire polemic, recorded in the works of the monk, develops in relation to Christ are the following: describe - indescribable, depict - indescribable, worship - non-worship. These terminological pairs are considered by Rev. Theodore each in the corresponding section: 1) “Describeable - indescribable” is understood in the context of the teaching about the person of the incarnate God the Word. In this context, the describability of Christ according to humanity and the indescribability according to Divinity, the properties of natures in Him, the hypostatization of human nature, the communion of properties and the deification of human nature are considered, in connection with this the attitude of St. Theodore to the “heresy of theopaschism.” 2) “depictable - indepicable” is understood in the context of the teaching about the content of the icon as an image of the hypostasis of Christ, which depicts the face of the incarnate God. 3) “we worship - we do not worship” is understood in the context of the teaching about the unity of worship of Christ and His prototype and forms the semantic core of the entire system of theology of the icon of St. Theodore, in relation to whom the entire teaching as a whole acts as a theological foundation. Consistently developing these terminological foundations, St. Theodore introduces a whole system of concepts 84. 1. Let's describe (περιγραπτος). Only God is indescribable in the proper sense of the word, because... unlimited by time and space. Consequently, it is fundamentally incomprehensible to the human mind, that is, it is unimaginable. On the contrary, everything created, as being within the framework of time and space, is cognizable and, therefore, describable. Looking broadly, in general, everything “intelligible” can be described in some sense, if not in an image, then in a word and concept. “We are taught to depict not only what is subject to sensation, touch and color, but also everything that is embraced by thought through the contemplation of the mind” 85. In this understanding, describability is an essential property of the created world, and its denial is equivalent to the denial of the associated concepts of visibility, tangibility or knowability, i.e. gross distortion of the concept of the subject. 2. Displayability (εικονιζεσθαι, απεικονιζεσθαι), reproducibility is a direct consequence of describability, which is realized through the assimilation (ομοιωσις) of the mapping to the prototype. This is exactly how the image appears “in its likeness”. 3. In this case, a relationship, a connection (σχεσις) arises between the image and the prototype, which is preserved at the deepest level and does not disappear under any conditions. This connection of the image with the prototype can be different depending on the nature of the image itself. 4. The image (εικων) can be natural, natural (φυσικη εικων) and artificial (τεχνητη εικων). The first is similar to the prototype due to the commonality of the being, the second “by likeness.” An example of a natural image is either the Word in relation to the Father in the Trinity or the son in relation to the mother. “Christ in Divinity (has similarities) with His Father, but in humanity - with His Mother” 86. An artificial image is similar not by nature, but only by appearance, distinctive features, characteristics (χαρακτηρ, ειδος). 5. In both cases, the image has a relative communion to the prototype (σχετικος μεταληψις), in the first case by participation and community of nature, in the second by participation and community of χαρακτηρ’a. 6. The participation of the characteristic features of the prototype for the image is not just a superficial similarity, but a way of expressing the nature of the prototype through its description (υποστασιν), because appearance is a manifestation of the nature of the prototype, “it is an objectively given phenomenon, realized in the thing itself” 87. In this regard, due to the similarity of the image with the actual face of Christ, He and His image are one and the same. 7. Thus, the icon of Christ, or rather His image, applied to any suitable surface, which describes Him χαρακτηρ, reveals Him hypostatically and, accordingly, should be worshiped (προσκυνησις) as Christ Himself. Filling these terms with specific theological content constitutes the main part of the theological treatises of St. Theodora Studite. The central term in his entire theological system is the term similarity (παραγωνον), it was with the help of it that the monk was able to put together an original, new, and most importantly, argumentation for the worship of the icon of Christ sufficient to express the faith of the Church, which will be shown below. (Christological background of icon painting) The main argument of the iconoclasts against the depiction of Christ was the assertion of His indescribability in human form. Moreover, in this statement, the iconoclasts were based, first of all, on Chalcedonian Christology. It was from the resolutions of the IV Ecumenical Council that they derived what had become a classic dilemma, which was supposed to perplex the Orthodox. If the icon describes the humanity of Christ, excluding His Divine nature, then Nestorianism is obtained with its separation of God and man in Christ. If, on the contrary, the icon describes Christ in both natures at once, then it follows that either the Divinity is describable, which is impossible, or is in a mixed state with humanity, then this is the heresy of the Monophysites. Thus they conclude that the introduction of the image of the flesh of Christ destroys the balance of the Chalcedonian creed. The Monk Theodore in his works gives an Orthodox interpretation of the Chalcedonian oros in relation to icon veneration. 2.2.1. Nature and its properties The Monk Theodore, in the preface to the “Third Refutation,” says: “When discussing this subject, I will use some conclusions that are not distinguished by skillful weaving according to the rules of Aristotle’s science, as well as idle talk, but based on simpler speech, on the power of truth.” 88 However, this does not prevent the holy father from using the conceptual apparatus of Aristotelian categories to present the concept of nature. Understanding the essence of St. Theodora Aristotelian 89. “Those (objects) that are of different kinds and unequal essence, along with their essences, also have different properties, for example, among Divinity and humanity” 90. And vice versa, “in those objects whose properties are not identical and whose essences are different” 91. The most important polemical weight for St. Theodora has the statement that “the properties of each nature are inseparable from it” 92. Therefore, denying any essential property of nature is impossible. This philosophical premise of St. Theodore applies directly to the properties of the Divine and human natures in Christ. Indescribability and unknowability are an essential property of the Divine. Descriptibility is an essential property of human nature, as well as all objects of the sensory world. The same applies to “intelligible” objects. Denial of the property of describability entails the denial of all other properties associated with it: visibility, tangibility, and also cognition in general. And vice versa, recognizing something as knowable leads to recognizing it as describable 93 . 2.2.2. Communion of the properties of natures in Christ The key point in the reverend’s system of views, which reveals his Christological premises, is the question of how the opposing properties of the Divine and human natures are united in Christ. In this matter, Rev. Theodore sharply differentiates himself from the iconoclasts. A very illustrative example of his views is his attitude towards theopaschist sayings in the spirit of St. Cyril of Alexandria and to the very concept of theopaschism, because theopaschism, like nothing else, is a direct consequence of the doctrine of the complicity of natures in each other 94 . Theopaschism of St. Theodore calls it nothing less than heresy 95. This remark occurs only once in the saint's works. But even if we assume that this statement is just a polemical move against the iconoclasts, it forces us to pay attention to some points. In general, the spirit of what is called “theopaschism” is clearly present in the works of the saint. He repeatedly says similar words: “May the death of our Lord and God Jesus Christ move your souls. For He, being immortal, shed blood" 96. Or something like this: “The Lord, who reveals the “counsels of the heart” and knows every thought of man, is led to counsel (condemning Him to death); He who bears all things with the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) is delivered into the hands of sinful people; bind the water on the clouds (Job 26:8) and he who scatters it on the earth in due time and equally is led as a prisoner...” 97, etc. However, at the same time, theopaschism itself declares a heresy, and not just a heresy, but a delusion akin to iconoclasm: “If it is impious to assert that the Divinity suffered together with the flesh, the omnipresence of the fact that Christ was crucified according to the flesh - for this is the teaching of the Theopaschists, then it is equally impious to say that, due to the describability of the flesh, the Divinity is also describable with it - for (this is the teaching of) the iconoclasts...” 98 . It is obvious that for Theodore the term “theopaschism” is understood in a completely different way from how it is commonly understood in the Orthodox environment, and to “theopaschists” he is assimilating a non-Orthodox teaching. From the course of reasoning of the reverend himself, it can be assumed that he rejects such an understanding of theopaschism as the iconoclasts of his time presented it in their Christology. Confirmation of this assumption can be found in a broader context, if we consider both St. Theodore spoke generally about communicatio idiomatum. He is very careful in positive statements and begins his presentation with general premises and possible options for such “communication.” First of all, communication of properties in the sense of identity and equality of the natures containing them is not possible: “...neither nature nor the properties existing with them can come into that communication, which (would consist in) identity and equality in essence.” At first glance, this is a self-evident statement, against which hardly anyone would object, but it is precisely this accusation that St. Theodore the Studite attracts iconoclasts. The logic of his reasoning is as follows: “Which (objects) have mixed properties, those, obviously, have natures (mixed)” 99. Moreover, such a mixture inevitably leads to the transition of properties from one nature to another. This line of thought is very characteristic of St. Theodora. The transition of essential properties, in turn, means a change or even destruction of the nature possessing this property 100. Thus he comes to expose the iconoclasts: “And although you do not say (directly), but assume one simple (and at the same time) complex nature of Divinity and humanity, then you, together with the North, seem to admit a mixed state of fire-water (υδροπυρον). After all, the unity of properties simultaneously proves the individual content of nature” 101. It is obvious that the iconoclastic understanding of the communication of properties, as St. Petersburg sees it. Theodore in the form of confusion, for him immediately testifies to Monophysitism. Then, naturally, the words of the saint are true that the iconoclasts, due to the describability of Christ according to humanity, also speak about His describability according to Divinity, which no longer applies only to the words of the saint. Theodore, but is an objective fact of the controversy. This could only be asserted from the position of extremes of communicatio idiomatum, when we were talking about the “full perception of humanity” 102. Confirmation that Rev. Theodore contrasted his teaching with the iconoclasts, given their precisely Monophysite bias in Christology, is his own terminology and manner of speaking. “Truly, Christ, being at the same time God and perfect man, can be called by both natures of which He consists, and by both in the proper sense can be represented, since the properties of both in the unity of His person are not diminished or confused” 103, “...in general, according to each essence of His Divinity and humanity, due to the combination (author’s italics) of properties of a two kind belonging to them, It (the Word of God) is describable and indescribable, as well as visible and invisible, tangible and intangible” 104. The terminologically correct analogue for “communication of properties” is “connection of properties,” with the strongest emphasis placed on the connection only in the individual, but not directly. Understanding the connection makes St. Theodore close to the old Antiochene theological terminology 105. In some expressions he comes very close to Nestorian vocabulary. For example, he writes: “in the flesh of the Word, received from the Virgin, as if in a church that It created for Itself, dwells all the fullness of the Divinity” 106. From the fact that the monk saw Monophysite Christology in iconoclasm, it becomes clear why he avoids the terminology compromised by the iconoclasts and turns to terminology that is in some sense the opposite. An example of such Studite tactics is that in the works of the monk the word “deification” never appears, even by chance. Likewise, there is no talk of deifying, blessed energies 107. The Monk Theodore focuses all his attention on the completeness, preservation and immutability of natures in Christ and their properties, while avoiding even traditional Orthodox terminology and speaking very restrainedly in expressions convenient for polemics. The main task here for him is to preserve the main soteriological principle: “...how could He be a Mediator between God and people without preserving intact the properties of each of the two natures of which He consists?” 108 And immediately along with this, it follows for the monk that Christ united in Himself, “as if in a natural unity,” Divinity and humanity and was “indescribable in spirit, but describable in body” 109. “And if, due to the describability of one, the other could also become describable, i.e. in the created is the uncreated, then it would be absolutely necessary that one would pass from indescribability into describability, and the other from describability into indescribability, and each of the two natures would mutually transfer one to the other what is inherent in it and would be deprived of the natural and particular properties inherent in it, and, finally, none of the natures would be preserved in Christ in reality...” 110 From this and similar passages the view of St. Theodore on the “communion of properties” in Christ. He denies the possibility of direct communication 111, since this, in his understanding, eliminates the “reality” of each of the natures 112. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that for St. Theodore’s central thesis, as for all theology, is still the statement about the union of two natures in Christ. But the emphasis for him is not on the fact of union itself, but on the union of natures in a single hypostatic principle - the Person of the Word. 2.2.3. The union of natures in the person of Christ For Rev. Theodore, when talking about the communication of properties (in the Orthodox understanding), it is not enough to say that “due to the perfect unity of the received flesh and the receiving Divinity, the names are mutually replaced. So humanity is called by the Divine and Divine by the human name” 113. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that for St. Theodora means the expression: “God appeared in the flesh,” i.e. described by all categories of this created world? This means for him that the hypostasis of the indescribable and indescribable God has become the hypostasis of human nature. “In hypostasis He remains one and the same, having within the established boundaries the unconfused beginning of both of His natures” 114. And through this, the very described humanity became the content of the Divine person. The hypostasis of the Word was the common hypostasis of both natures and took on human nature with distinctive properties, therefore human nature has its own existence “not in a separately existing and not in a specially described person, apart from the hypostasis of the Word, but in this very hypostasis, so that (human) nature does not find itself outside the hypostasis; in her (i.e. in the hypostasis of the Word), as in a separate person, she is contemplated and described” 115. This face began to express humanity, this is the “I” of the man Jesus, therefore it can be described, since the property of human nature is to be described, therefore the describability of human nature is realized, i.e. becomes active (and not passive), valid according to the word of the saint - real in this person of Jesus - God the Word. This is the same person of God the Word, One of the Trinity, and it realizes in itself the describability of human nature and only in this sense does it become manifest, visible. 2.2.4. Descriptibility – indescribability of the Divine To avoid confusion of concepts, St. Theodore lays the foundation of his teaching on a conceptual division, in which it becomes possible to understand, without a logical error, the union of opposite properties in the One Christ: describability and indescribability. “If Christ is God and man, then not by the same nature by which He is God, He is also man. It is obvious that not by the same property by which He is indescribable, He is also describable, since one thing differs from the other.” 116 “The indescribable and the describable are of a different order,” 117 just like the Divine and human natures - concepts that do not intersect in any way in their scope. The describability of human nature, thus, even in terms of the scope of the concept itself, does not in any way conflict with the indescribability of the Divine. This dilution of concepts looks too scholastic and could be unnecessary if before St. Theodore did not have a specific task to refute any form of “confusion” of natures in Christ by the iconoclasts: “Since the Divinity is united with the flesh in hypostatic unity, then, of necessity, the unlimited, indescribable Divinity is depicted in the outline of the flesh” 118. The basis of the entire argument of Theodore the Studite is the premise of faith: “When the One of the Trinity, by His ineffable goodness, descended into human nature, becoming similar to us, then the union of the incompatible, the mixing of that which does not mix, took place - the indescribable with the describable... All this is extraordinary. He who, according to His Divinity, remains indescribable, receives a natural description of His body, so that both (natures) may be manifested in reality as they are” 119. In Jesus, two natures were “unfused”: Divine and human. Christ is a true man because His mother is a man, but He is also One of the Trinity. According to the nature of His mother, of whom He is a natural image, He is describable and has an “image of a bodily form,” but according to the Father’s, He is indescribable and, naturally, cannot be described. Thus possessing two natures, Christ appears to man as indescribable-indescribable (γραπτοαγραπτος) and therefore “remains indescribable even at the time when he is depicted (on icons)” 120 The value of the work of St. Theodore the Studite in the formulation of Christological premises is that he was able to define the concepts of the describability and indescribability of Christ in the context of the Chalcedonian definition of faith: “unfused, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable.” In the Chalcedonian oros as a whole, the mystery of the union of natures in Christ was limited in the most general terms. Due to this breadth, the definition could be misinterpreted in specific particular cases, which is what happened during the Monothelite disputes. The same is true against the iconoclasm of St. Theodore needed to interpret Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in relation to icons and speak not in general about natures, but narrowly about only one property of describability. Thus, the monk comes to the antinomic conclusion about the indescribable-indescribable nature of Christ. 2.3. Let's depict - indescribable (Possibility of the existence of an icon) The formulation of Christological dogma in relation to icons was of utmost importance for icon veneration. However, from the recognition of the describability of Christ by humanity, it did not at all follow for the iconoclasts that it was possible to depict Him on material objects: boards, walls, etc. St. Theodore is clearly aware of this and gives as an example the actual or possible proposal of the iconoclasts to depict Christist, but only in the “contemplation of the mind” through memory 121. At the same time, we are not talking about the fact that matter is unworthy or incapable of containing the face of Christ. Only in a few places does the monk start talking about the dignity of the material of the icon and responds, on the one hand, that such “humiliation” only elevates Christ 122, on the other, that the material in this case is something secondary and is not a subject of discussion at all. The charges were different. The first question was the following: will it be adequate to depict the specific human features of Jesus Christ in His authentic image, the image of His hypostasis 123? 2.3.1. Icon – image of the hypostasis of Christ The answer to this question constitutes a transitional stage from Christology to iconology proper. The monk’s answer here is direct: in general, he recognizes the position of the iconoclasts to “depict” Christ in the mind as acceptable, 124 but complements it with the possibility of depicting His face on icons. Moreover, he elevates this possibility to a dogmatic level of necessity, because the icon is evidence of the incarnation. First of all, Rev. Theodore, based on the already explained double property of Christ of describability and indescribability, also derives by analogy the concept of His simultaneous depictability and indescriptibility. Here he is based on two premises: 1) the doctrine of the “double birth” of the same God the Word, eternally from the Father and in time from the Mother, 2) the doctrine of natural and artificial images. “Iconoclasts, mixing through great foolishness that which cannot be mixed, do not know how to give each birth its inherent qualities...” 125, the Venerable Monk again hints. Theodore on the Monophysite deviation of the iconoclasts. The peculiarity of this double birth was that Christ is the image of both Father and Mother. Moreover, every “image has a resemblance to the prototype, but a natural (image has it) naturally, and an artificial one – artificially” 126. That is, the natural image is consubstantial with its prototype. “...and the first, both in essence and likeness, does not differ from the one of which it is a reflection; so Christ in Divinity (has similarities) with His Father, but in humanity - with His Mother” 127. From these words it follows that Christ, both in “essence” and “likeness,” does not differ from His Mother. Christ is consubstantial with the human Mother and is her likeness. These words of the saint place deliberate emphasis on the perfection of humanity in Christ. Since He is the natural image of the human Mother, therefore, like Her, He also has an artificial image, that is, we can depict it. “The artificial comes from the imitation of the natural; it would be impossible to talk about anything artificial if the natural had not previously existed. So, there is an artificial image of Christ, just as He (Himself) is a natural image of the Mother who gave birth to Him” 128. At the same time, “since Christ comes from the indescribable Father, He, being indescribable, cannot have an artificial image” 129, that is, indescribable. As for the property of Christ’s depictability, a related question arises: what is depicted? The monk answers briefly: only a face can be depicted, but not nature. “In every depiction, it is not the nature (of the object) that is depicted, but the object itself in its particular features (υποστασις)” 130. For example, the monk speaks of a certain individual: “... he usually consists of particular features, is visible, moves and speaks, and therefore we can describe him, like, for example, James, John” 131. This general principle of St. Theodore fully applies to the person of Jesus Christ. “We can describe Christ according to personal being (υποστασιν), although according to Divinity and indescribable, and not from the side of those natures of which He consists” 132. The possibility of such reasoning is justified by the statement that Christ perceived human nature as it exists in all people, therefore it is hypostasized as in all people in individuality through distinctive features (χαρακτηρ). In this prp. Theodore the Studite sets out the traditional Aristotelian understanding of essences 1 and 2: “General properties are contemplated by the mind and thinking, and particulars by the eyes, which see what is perceived by the senses” 133 . Thus, God the Word had the same distinctive features as all other people, i.e. possessed, in the full sense of the word, human individuality. “He is one of men like us, although (together) he is God, One of the Trinity. How in the latter respect He differs from the Father and the Holy Spirit by filial property; so in the first, He differs from all other people by personal (hypostatic) properties...” 134. The denial of depictability logically leads to the denial of describability and, in general, the reality of the incarnation, since “humanity would not be in Christ if it did not exist in Him, as if in some (individual person)” 135. Thus, the individual human traits by which Christ differs from all other people are nothing more than a manifestation of His Divine personality. Consequently, “the image of Christ has in its own outline the appearance of Christ” 136 and is actually the image of the Face of God the Word. However, on this very pretentious conclusion of St. Theodore does not stop. He deliberately strengthens this conclusion many times over in the following expressions: “... the image is the likeness of Christ and in itself reveals Christ” 137. It doesn’t just show, but “the image of Christ is not anything different in comparison with Christ, except, of course, the difference in essence” 138, that is, in general “an icon, in terms of the similarity of the face, is one and the same with the one depicted on the icon” 139. This is quite understandable, since the depictability of Christ, which is justified by the describability of His Face according to the properties of human nature, is also just another argument for affirming the main thing: the possibility of worshiping the icon of the Savior. The logic of the monk in this case is as follows: proof of the depiction of the Face of Christ on the icon can serve as an argument for affirming the possibility of venerating this image only if it is proven that the icon can in some way associate and connect with the depicted Christ. At the same time, it was necessary to do this in such a way as to avoid new accusations of exaggerating the independent mystical role of icons, i.e. roughly speaking, in idolatry. St. Theodore found such a way. He claims that only Christ is worshiped in the icon; the material of the icon does not participate in this worship at all, because the image itself or that the same “likeness” of Christ does not belong to the icon. It belongs to Christ and is inseparable from Him, and is present on the icon only “in its likeness.” Thus, the monk introduces the most important concepts in his system: “likeness” and “in likeness”, which need to be considered. 2.3.2. “Likeness” of Christ in His image “In the understanding of St. Theodore, every image is always a description of the prototype, its imprint, reflection and, ultimately, a specific image of the appearance, characteristic features" 140. To bring terminological clarity, the monk introduces a special concept of “likeness” (παραγωγον) to designate this appearance. The reverend also often uses synonyms for this term “image” (not in the sense of a picture or icon, but in the sense of depicted features, written), “visible image”, “appearance” or even “uses Plotinus’ term ειδος (meaning the “internal eidos” of Neoplatonism. - author’s note) to designate a visible image” 141. “The appearance, as far as it exists in the prototype, is called similarity, and as a result one is not separated from the other, excluding, of course, only differences in essence” 142. The hypostatic unity of the image and prototype is justified by the monk precisely by the unity of similarity, because it is the same both in the prototype and in the image. The affirmation of this unity of similarity is something new that St. Petersburg brought. Theodore in the Argument of the Icon Venerators. In order to clearly and consistently trace the “mechanism” of the transition of likeness from prototype to image, he begins from the time when this likeness, external features were contemplated in Christ directly during His earthly life, and then after His bodily ascension were transferred to any material, but remained the same. “The image of Christ was in Him, as in a prototype, even before it was received through art” 143. “When Christ was accessible to vision, then His image was contemplated as far as possible, and then it was transferred to any substance that could be imprinted” 144. Accordingly, in the end Rev. Theodore concludes that “the prototype and the image are one according to the similarity inherent in each of them, but by nature they are two...” 145. At the same time, the most important emphasis, which is actually necessary for St. Theodore in his argument, he makes the point that this likeness essentially remained to belong only to Christ, since He did not disincarnate after His ascension, and is found on objects only as an impression on wax from a seal, for example. This is, in particular, proven by the fact that similarity transferred to a variety of materials must retain its identity, and this, according to St. Theodora, is possible only if the prototype itself, i.e. original likeness, unchanged. “Without a doubt, the image inscribed in the likeness on different substances remains the same; but it could not remain unchanged on various substances, unless on the condition that it has nothing in common with them, but is only united by thought with those (substances) on which it is located” 146. The last statement is only about the mental connection of St. Theodore is essentially ready to renounce the independent value of the icon altogether. Consistently strengthening the role of similarity in relation to the icon itself, the monk claims that in the image this similarity “is revealed to the audience better than in the prototype itself” 147 . He explains this with the example of a shadow cast by an object. “The shadow is always co-present with the object, even if it has not received its form from the sun’s ray” 148. Just as a shadow becomes clearly visible in sunny weather, so “the image of Christ becomes clear to everyone when it is imprinted on substances” 149. A direct consequence of this strengthening of the meaning of similarity in the icon is a completely logical question, which dialectically gives rise to an important clarification in the thesis of the monk. The imaginary iconoclast asks the question: “what do we see when we look at an icon: an image of Christ or Himself.” This is a clear reaction to the increasing role of likeness in the icon. The iconoclast means in what relation this image of Christ stands, i.e. His likeness to Himself. After all, it is important for the person praying to appear on the icon before Christ Himself, i.e. the question contains the thought of how Christ appears in the icon and whether this similarity is equal to the actual hypostasis of Christ. The question is, of course, provocative. St. answers that Christ is not one and the same with his image, “although by their inseparable name they are one and the same” 150. “If attention is drawn to the resemblance (achieved) through the image to the prototype, then (the icon) is called Christ or an image of Christ; but Christ (is called) by the same name, and the image of Christ is called in relation to Him” 151. Here Rev. Theodore very subtly establishes a balance that keeps two ideas that he himself strengthened many times in balance: on the one hand, the likeness does not belong to the icon, on the other hand, it also does not merge in the thoughts of the monk and with the face of Christ Himself. However, the same similarity is equally involved in both the image and the prototype, and in the same way: relatively, that is, in relation (σχεσις). Thus, similarity occupies a special connecting place, because for the monk it is important to reveal and argue precisely this connection between the image and the prototype. An indicative illustration of this important thought is St. Theodore can be served by his teaching on the worship of saints on the icon, in which he clearly and consistently adheres to his method. For him, ultimately, there is no significant difference in worship and honor between the image of a holy person and a non-saint. It all depends only on who is depicted on the icon and how worthy he is of this veneration. Thus, worship becomes a thing that is also relative and “many-species.” “Not everyone depicted on an icon is worthy of worship,” 152 agrees with the iconoclast St. Theodore, but notices that there are also worthy of worship. That is, worship is inherently “multiform.” He writes like this: “worship is only in relation to God; in relation to the rest, worship is different...” 153. St. Theodore here says that there is not much difference in the subjective attitude of the viewer between an icon, a painting, or simply the worship of a person. “Honor and worship are given even to a simple person, but not faith and worship of God” 154. The difference lies solely in the personality of the worshiped: “... the icon of the Mother of God, as the Mother of God, (the icons of) saints, as the image of saints” 155, etc. Thus, based on the doctrine of “similarity” παραγωνον, St. Theodore comes to consistent conclusions that an icon is essentially no different from any type of art, for example, from an ordinary painting. Because 1) only “likeness” is valuable on an icon, 2) it makes no difference what is depicted, Christ or just people, saints or not, because the image of appearance is just a natural property of human nature, following from describability. 3) in the end, the icon is simply destroyed when the face is damaged, or when, due to dilapidation, it is not clear whose image is depicted. 2.3.3. The connection between the image and the prototype “in likeness” St. Theodore recognizes that the icon by its nature is no different from a work of secular art, because it displays the visible features of the prototype. But the iconoclasts did not deny religious painting, but they categorically denied the worship of the icon. The main difference here is the understanding of the relationship between the image and the prototype. St. Theodore introduces the concept of connection (σχεσις) between the image and the prototype. After all, if there were not at least some form of relationship between the image and the prototype, then the image would become completely autonomous, and since it is objectively worshiped, then the accusation of iconoclasts of idolatry would be fair. This is the traditional logic of the iconoclasts, from which, in particular, the doctrine of the Eucharist as a consubstantial image followed. St. Theodore not only introduces the concept of “connection,” but also makes it key in the entire understanding of the relationship between the image and the prototype, which naturally arises from the moment of painting the icon until its consecration. Only once, Rev. Theodore the Studite directly speaks of the presence of grace in the icon: “one must believe that divine grace dwells in it (the icon – author’s note), and that it imparts sanctification to those who approach it with faith” 156. Such restraint in expressions clearly contradicts the polemical tone of the defenders of the icon from the time of the First Iconoclasm. The “gracefulness” of the icon was based primarily on the presence of Divine energies in the icon, through which it becomes a “vessel of grace” 157. At St. Theodore does not have a teaching about blessed energies. But the same essence of Orthodox teaching is expressed by him in his term “relative communion” (σχετικος μεταληψις). The unity of the teaching is even justified by a common premise with his predecessors, from which it is true that they drew different conclusions. This premise is the omnipresence of God. “Where is the place in which there is no Deity - in (beings) rational and irrational, in animate and inanimate?” 158 Traditionally, this fact is explained precisely in the concept of the energies of God 159. But St. Theodore still thinks differently. He is faced with the question: “In what way do you think the Divinity of Christ is found in the image?” 160 His answer, briefly, is the following: God is present in the icon, “as in the shadow of the flesh united with Him” 161. Here the monk uses the already familiar image of a shadow, which he introduced specifically to explain the existence of the icon “in its likeness.” The same broad idea of ​​the relationship “in likeness” is expressed here by the words that the Divine is present in the icon because it “participates (μετεχοωτα) in grace and honor” 162. This “participation” in grace and honor is expressed in two important aspects: 1) the Divine is present to a greater or lesser extent “in accordance with the perceiving natures” 163 2) this is accomplished “according to their relative participation in Him” 164. Terminological feature of St. Theodora, expressed in words about “relative participation” (σχετικος μεταληψις) is due to the already discussed features in the use of the terms “relationship”, “connection”, “participation”. What also deserves special attention here is the general tendency to focus on the individual, which manifests itself in St. Theodore both in Christology and in the doctrine of the action of God (i.e., about the energies of God). “Through its action (energy), nature reveals itself, but always as a specific personality” 165. Energies are personal in nature, belonging essentially to a personal God. The Personal God gives Himself to the creature through His energies. “Energy, life, presence - no matter what we call what God gives us, all of them do not define the essence of God, but through them we receive the fullness of His presence” 166. The communion with the Divine Person occurs on the icon through “contemplation” of the likeness of the face of Christ. Such personal communication with Christ, in the understanding of icon-worshipers of both periods of iconoclasm, is clearly guaranteed by following the historical facts in the image and the insistent historicity of the icon. St. Tarasius, for example, writes: “Honest icons of our Lord Jesus Christ should be accepted only if they are depicted historically correctly, according to the Gospel narrative” 167 . And although it is obvious that it is not completely possible to preserve portrait resemblance for obvious objective reasons, it is important to preserve at least a certain minimum of likeness, which would preserve the connection of the image with the depicted. St. Theodore says this about this: “If we do not even recognize that the icon depicts the same image in comparison with the prototype, due to the inexperience of the work, then in this case we cannot speak of absurdity or dissimilarity. For veneration is given to an icon not insofar as it deviates from its resemblance to the prototype, but insofar as it represents its likeness” 168 . It is no coincidence, therefore, that the icon painting tradition of the Orthodox Byzantine and Russian icons firmly adhered to the writing of icons based on facial originals, where the icon painter could generally limit himself to only a few characteristic features of the depicted, which help to correctly recognize the icon image 169 . Thus, Rev. Theodore substantiates the fundamental possibility of the revelation of God in the icon, the possibility of “contemplating” His Face to partake of His mercies, His gracious help, so that even “whoever would say that the Divinity is present in the icon would not sin against the truth” 170. He does this by deriving the basic concepts of “participation” and “relative participation” of the image and prototype from his system of concepts, where the main one is “in likeness.” The monk points out that the potential Divine power of the icon becomes a reality in each specific case only through the faith of the “recipient”. A striking example of this is the tempting case for many when St. Theodore spoke approvingly of the action of a certain John Spafari, who used the icon of the Great Martyr as a recipient for the baptism of his son. Demetrius of Thessalonica. The monk interprets this act, in form an obvious superstition, as an act of extreme faith and only in this sense says: “Truly blessed are you, most pious man, that you received such a successor, very happy is your son, who was received with such great glory and power” 171. And he adds: “But for unclean ears and unbelieving souls this is unacceptable, as something incredible, especially for iconoclasts” 172. 2.4. Not only depicted, but also “contemplated” in “likeness” On the way to substantiate the possibility of worshiping the icon of Christ and His saints, St. Theodore came to two important conclusions: 1) an icon is an insignificant object in itself, which acquires its value only due to the display on it of the “likeness” of the face of Christ, 2) by “relative communion” this icon, for the sake of the “likeness” depicted on it, can mysteriously introduce the praying person to the grace of God, but solely by his faith. That is, the saint’s goal is to substantiate both the possibility of the existence of the icon and the possibility of connecting with God through it. In general, this type of argumentation is characteristic of all icon worshipers of both periods. The most typical example is the works of St. John of Damascus in defense of icons. The general tone of his polemics is something like this: “And since some blame us for worshiping and revering both the image of our Savior and Lady, and, moreover, the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, then let them hear that...” 173. What follows is a consistent presentation of various arguments in favor of the possibility of the existence of the icon. But at the same time, the positive presentation of the role of the icon in the Church, its necessity in the prayerful liturgical life of the Church, is reduced to a minimum. This is the point of early apologists for icons, such as John of Damascus, Patr. Herman, Tarasius and others adhere to the ancient, going back to the Cappadocian fathers, a brief explanation of the pedagogical, moralizing significance of icon painting. In this regard, Rev. Theodore the Studite made a great contribution to explaining the motives for creating the icon as such. Relatively speaking, his system provides an answer to the question not only of why an icon is possible, but also why. At the same time, the saint himself needs an explanation of the fundamental importance of the icon. Theodora. Indeed, on the way to proving the possibility of worshiping the Creator in His image, this is the main question that the iconoclasts asked: why do we need an icon if we can and should worship Him in “spirit and truth” 174? From the fact that an icon, even as an image of the hypostasis of Christ Himself, is possible, and that the grace of God is manifested in it, it does not directly follow that through the worship of an icon one can worship Christ Himself. After all, in the end, the iconoclasts did not deny sacred objects in the church. Worship had to be given some dynamic, active premise. Rev. found her. Theodore in the term “contemplation”, widely used in Eastern theology, θεωρια, the content of which acquired a special resonance in his works. In the general system of reasoning, this term is placed as follows. As already mentioned, the “likeness” of St. Theodora is a rather substantivized concept, separated from both the prototype and the image. This is the connecting link. “Similarity” does not belong to matter, but it is identical in “likening similarity” to the prototype and fully expresses it. At the same time, the opposite is also true: Christ, as a person, already possesses certain characteristic features that cannot be thought of outside their bearer, but still constitute something special, namely, the “likeness” of Christ. This universal nature of “similarity” allows St. Theodore to make an important advance: “The Christ described has an artificial image (= likeness - author’s note) in which He is contemplated, just as the image itself (the image is contemplated) in Christ” 175. Outside the system of concepts of the monk, this phrase would look meaningless, but inside it it has great power. For Rev. Theodora, contemplation is not just looking, it is already a category of spiritual experience and presupposes the receptivity and, at the same time, responsiveness of the contemplator. The icon, which opens up the possibility of this “contemplation,” allows one to appear before Christ himself like nothing else. To reveal the essence of the saint’s understanding of the concept of “contemplation” θεωρια, it is necessary to consider it in a slightly broader context. Traditionally, in patristic writing, the term contemplation is used in many meanings. We can distinguish the most used 176: 1) contemplation as sensory visual perception, 2) as intellectual comprehension (meaning research, understanding, etc.) 3) mystical contemplation (as knowledge of God, as the goal of human life in the contemplation of the Divine through purification of the heart, as grace-filled illumination under the influence of the Holy Spirit, etc.) Here are also visions, revelations of the prophets, as contemplatives of the mysteries of God. 4) Contemplation as a technical term for clarifying the meaning of Holy Scripture in exegesis. Identifying the meaning of the term “θεωρια” seems to be a considerable problem, because in history it was often used in different senses, both in dogmatic disputes and in various areas of spiritual mysticism, for example. As an example, we can point out that the understanding of the contemplation of two natures in Christ became a stumbling block in the dispute with the Monophysites, not only in ancient times, but even in the modern theological dialogue with the “pre-Chalcedonites” 177. The problem lies in understanding a seemingly single expression about comprehension, the perception of the union of the two natures of Christ εν θεωρια μονη (in a single contemplation). Depending on the use of θεωρια in different phrases, the shade in the understanding of the duality of natures changes. In the lexicon of Sevirus of Antioch the combination εν θεωρια διακρισις (διακρινονται) is consistently used, which means contemplation of separation. In the Orthodox tradition, St. Cyril of Alexandria, the combination εν θεωρια διαφορεω is considered adequate, i.e. contemplation of discrimination. These expressions could have been synonymous if the “contemplation” of divided natures had not been thought of by Sevier’s supporters more as a subjective perception, a division in imagination, actually recognized as unity in the Monophysite sense; despite the fact that “contemplation” of discernment was understood even after St. Cyril in the Orthodox sense as something objective, an objective difference in natural actions 178. In the field of mysticism, the term “contemplation” was also not unambiguous and varied significantly in understanding in the so-called “moral-practical” and “abstract-speculative” directions 179 . One of the possible divisions is the following. In the first case, “contemplation” was associated more with the activity of feeling, “movements of the heart” and the spiritual enlightenment associated with this, the result of which could be “delight of feeling” 180. In the second, it was more about “abstract speculation of the mind,” and the action of grace, the sign of the presence of God, is φωτισμος - illumination with divine light 181. So, for example, for Clement of Alexandria, contemplation is more a movement of the mind towards God in search of Divine gnosis, and for Simeon the New Theologian, it is primarily the experience of illumination by the light of God and the contemplation of His immeasurable love. If we broaden our view somewhat only on the mystical traditions of understanding “contemplation”, then we can identify two extremes, equally condemned by the Church, between which various currents of mystics balanced: between “the intellectualism of Evagrius Pontus, originating from Origen and his Platonic spiritualism, and with the sensory experience of the Messalians, in which God materializes, takes sensual forms when entering into communication with people” 182. Identification of this disposition can most clearly show the problems in new interpretations of “contemplation” in the era of iconoclasm. It should be noted that during the iconoclastic disputes, the term “contemplation” became especially relevant and used. It was actively used to explain and prove their positions by both iconoclasts and icon-worshippers, in particular, both the Iconoclast Council of 754 and the Ecumenical Council of 787. This is far from accidental, because iconoclasm touched upon both dogmatic topics and, perhaps even more so, applied, practical spiritual ones (which is worth one dispute about the relevance of monasticism). From a practical standpoint, it was obvious to both sides that icon veneration is based primarily on a person’s sensory perception, on the power of his memory and imagination. Therefore, it seems possible to pose the most general question regarding “contemplation” in a given era: in what relation does the “contemplation” of God relate to the power of imagination and sensory visual perception in general? Summarizing the various statements of the parties, we can reduce them to two types. It is typical for iconoclasts to say: “Let (the image of Christ) remain in the contemplation of the mind, let, as much as possible, some divine image be depicted in us, which is implanted in us by the Holy Spirit through sanctification and justification” 183. For Orthodox Christians in general this sounds a little different: “The more often with the help of icons they (the Lord and the saints - author’s note) become the object of our contemplation, the more those who look at these icons are awakened to the memory of the very prototypes...” 184. The position of the iconoclasts on this issue is quite stable; they insist exclusively on direct “contemplation of the mind.” In the literature, this position is confidently attributed to the revival of Origenist tendencies in the mysticism of the iconoclasts 185 . In this regard, the position of icon worshipers is important. St. Petersburg speaks most expressively about “contemplation.” John of Damascus. The logic of his reasoning is as follows: “Through icon painting, we contemplate the image of the bodily appearance (of Jesus Christ) and His miracles and sufferings, and are illuminated... And contemplating His bodily appearance, we imagine, as far as possible, the glory of His deity” 186. Since we are two-part, and the soul is connected with the flesh, therefore, “contemplation of spiritual objects” is impossible to do without “what is related and akin to us” 187. It is precisely this need that he explains the need for an icon. In addition, in the systematization of St. John types of images: natural, predetermined, man (as the image of God) and intended for “remembrance of what happened” 188, only the latter is considered worshipable, in the sense that “we worship the creatures through which and in which God accomplished our salvation” 189. Thus, it turns out that an icon is an image, looking at which a person through memory, i.e. the activity of the entire mental sphere of the soul: the power of fantasy, which reproduces images in memory, “imagining”, reaches the contemplation of the image of the bodily appearance of Christ. Thus, the nature of such contemplation is clearly not mystical in the proper sense of the word, but rather divine. Such contemplation can conventionally be called “imaginative.” However, to dwell on this judgment of St. John, as a general opinion, would be unfair. The Ecumenical Council of 787 makes an interesting remark: “In one and the same Christ both the indescribable and the describable are contemplated” 190 . St. Theodore the Studite very accurately defined the place of contemplation in the system of icon veneration. He fully accepted the ideas of St. John and the Council on contemplation, but in many ways brought these ideas to their logical conclusion. Acquaintance with the ascetic written heritage of St. Theodora shows one notable feature. In his “Acts” addressed to the monks, specific instructions regarding the private prayer of the monks are kept to a minimum. First of all, in his teachings, he addresses the will of the monks, encourages them to fulfill the already well-known and, probably, self-explanatory establishments of monastic life 191. At the same time, there is not even a hint of the teaching about the practice of unceasing Jesus prayer. Although the teaching about the need for spiritual sobriety, attention, turning inward, concentrated standing before God at all times is the core of the teachings. But this teaching about sobriety of mind can be expressed in the aphoristic words of the saint himself. Theodora: “Idleness is the mother of depravity, but work is the preservation of the mind” 192. An unceasing mood of prayer was achieved in Studion using the well-known means of a cenobitic monastery: work, prayer, psalmody. “Even while resting in their own cell, monks must mentally read some psalm with meditation, so as not to be tempted” 193. Along with the absence of visible traces, at least in the works of the monk himself, of the tradition of smart work, the following statements are found in abundance: “We will acquire eternal treasure - prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgiving (1 Tim. 2:1), tears, contrition, enlightenment, good contemplation" 194. Or this: “Look, my father, grief; look at the Lord, imagine the faces of angels, imagine hosts of saints, contemplate the Judge of the world sitting on a high, exalted throne” 195. What exactly does St. Petersburg propose to represent? Theodore: “So, our mind should be directed towards God, to the contemplation of heavenly things, to the beauties of paradise, to eternal places of residence, to the choirs of angels, to the way of life where the souls of the righteous and sinners now find themselves; ...what is the greatness of the terrible face of Christ, which surpasses the sun in its radiance, what kind of voice we will hear, and finally, what will be the state of the righteous who have received the kingdom of heaven, and of sinners sent to eternal torment” 196 . In this regard, the question of the role of imagination in this kind of “contemplation” arises with all urgency. St. Theodore completely rehabilitates the power of fantasy and speaks about it in the most positive words, without in the least belittling its role in the human soul. Fantasy is presented as a power of the soul, the same in meaning as “forces related to it, feeling, understanding, judgment, mind” 197. Moreover, “fantasy can be represented by some kind of icon” 198. In the sense that the representation (drawing) in the mind of Christ is equal to His depiction with paints. At the same time, the main thesis, which Rev. Theodore puts forward in relation to the content of the icon as an imprint of the “likeness” of Christ, he completely transfers it to the action of fantasy. “In our image it appears and is depicted in bodily form, because He is perfect God and at the same time man” 199. In general, the reverend’s understanding of the need for fantasy in the human soul is an argument for the doctrine of the image, the icon. In understanding the role of fantasy, St. Theodore agrees with St. John of Damascus. Imagination is precisely the power of the soul that allows a person to perceive the image of Christ, either directly in imagination through memory or indirectly with the help of an icon. St. emphasizes this. Theodore: “Truly an icon is a substitute for personal contemplation” 200. At the same time, he generally denies any imageless perception of Christ. To the words of Asterius of Amasia (4th century), who says: “Do not portray Christ; for one humiliation is enough for Him - the incarnation...” 201, - the monk replies, - “For what is he saying? “Mentally retaining in your soul, carry the incorporeal Word.” Oh madness! Did the divine lips call the Word incorporeal after it became flesh?” 202 Christ once became incarnate and did not disincarnate again - this is the main pathos of the saint. However, Rev. Theodore does not take the position of the anthropomorphites or Messalians, who understood the entire path of knowledge of God in terms of the image, which was particularly expressed in the ascetic practice of focusing on the “image of God” in prayer 203. The monk's foundation is based on the Chalcedonian antinomy. He says that “since Christ (consists of natures) of different kinds and not of the same essence, namely, from Divinity and humanity, therefore He is known through two properties” 204. Or he says a little differently: “If indescribability is a property of the essence of God, then describability is characteristic of the essence of man; Christ has one and the other nature and, therefore, is known from the side of two properties, depending on the natures” 205. That is, Christ is comprehended as visible in the flesh in the image and in the Divinity absolutely outside the image. The monk does not forget for a minute that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Another thing is that, as shown above, the entire Christology of St. Theodora is focused on the theme of the face of Christ. Christ is known in accordance with the properties of natures, but is contemplated as a person, only as Jesus Christ - the incarnate Word. Because only hypostasis is contemplated, as well as described and depicted, but not nature. At the same time, it is clear why the iconoclasts spoke of the spiritual contemplation of Christ outside the image. A bias towards Monophysitism, in which the deified flesh of Christ, His visible features, dissolve in the Divinity, which is outside the image. In this case, the term θεωρια itself acquires different meanings among the iconoclasts and among the saints. Theodora. For the first, it is more of an intellectual comprehension, but for the second, it is a kind of mystical revelation of God in the soul of the person praying through the action of his natural powers: vision, memory, imagination. “And without an icon He is worshiped mentally; for, of course, He cannot always be contemplated in a sensual icon. If someone says: therefore, if it is possible for me to worship mentally, it is unnecessary to worship on an icon, let him know that he also renounces to worship Christ mentally. For if the mind does not contemplate Him in human form sitting at the right hand of God the Father, then it will not even worship, if only it admits that the Word became flesh” 206. In practice this means the following. What is the prp. Does Theodore see the positive role and necessity of the icon in the Church? The icon affects a person’s vision and promotes such “contemplation” in which a person has the opportunity to worship Christ Himself. She places the person praying before the face of Christ, whose visible features are the “likeness” of Whose are imprinted on the icon. Thus, the entire human nature is involved in prayer, not only the mind, as the iconoclasts suggested, but also the senses through the organs of perception: vision through the icon, hearing through hearing the word of God, smell through the sensation of fragrant incense and even touch, because it is no coincidence that prayer is associated with bowing, the sign of the cross, and worship of the icon with kissing. So, the icon on which God Himself is “contemplated” is an instrument that, through this “contemplation” of the face of Christ, allows us to most fully and consciously worship the Creator. 2.5. We contemplate and worship As mentioned above, the entire theology of the image of St. Theodora comes down to justifying one key idea - the possibility of worshiping God and His saints through the icon. In general, he proceeds from the traditional thesis of the Orthodox, which was heard both during the times of iconoclasm and remains so now. “By worshiping the image, we worship the prototype” - this is the final essence of all icon veneration. Everything else can be represented as a dissemination of this condensed formula, and one that would satisfy the demands of the time and the nature of the objections to the icon. For Rev. Theodora’s thesis itself sounds a little different: “He who worships an image worships the one whom the image correctly represents” 207 . This is not accidental, because he made new accents in the teaching about the icon. For him, an icon, first of all, is a worship image. And she should be worshiped, of course, not as an autonomous bearer of grace, but first of all, as an image of the prototype. “For the main recipient of worship is the prototype. He is contemplated in the image, worship goes to him, and from him the icon receives grace-filled strength and energy” 208. An image or otherwise likeness of “παραγωνον”, which for St. Theodore's synonyms are the new thing on which he builds his doctrine of image worship. It is the image that “receives” worship from the person praying, and it is from the icon that God’s help comes. The image is a mediator, but nothing more. “It is not the essence of the icon that serves as the object of worship, but the image of the prototype imprinted on it, since the essence of the icon is not worshiped. Equally, it is not the substance (icons) that is the object of worship, but the prototype, conceived together with the image, but not with the essence” 209. However, “... one must believe that divine grace dwells in it, and that it imparts sanctification to those who approach it with faith” 210. But since the monk says that only the image is worshiped on the icon, he also explains that this worship is common with the prototype. That is, it is impossible to really separate when a person worships the image, and when the prototype, because the worship of the “likeness” is inseparable from the worship of its owner. This division is only permissible logically, because “in which (objects) there is one similarity (παραγωνον), they obviously have one worship” 211. Therefore, we can talk about the communion of honor between the image and the prototype: “When worship is given to Christ, then His image is also worshiped, as if it were in Christ; and when worship is given to His image, then worship is given to Christ, for in him (i.e. in the image) the one worshiped (is precisely Christ)” 212. Moreover, we can also talk about “communion of dishonor,” that is, when the image of Christ is dishonored, for example by iconoclasts, then the Prototype itself is dishonored. “He endured everything, ridicule, mockery and other suffering on the cross. He endures the same thing now through His icon and in His icon; for in the image the prototype is represented, as it was said by the saints” 213. Thus, St. Theodore affirms the “unity of worship” of the image and the prototype. Together with the general theoretical basis, operating with the term “similarity” allowed St. Theodore very accurately distinguishes between different types of worship. We are talking about the division undertaken by St. John of Damascus and repeated at the VII Ecumenical Council, worship in the sense of service offered only to God, λατρεια and veneration προσκυνησις, which is given to the icon, just like other sacred objects or people. This division, which has become classical and included in textbooks on dogmatic theology, does not occupy any place in the system of St. Theodora. As Preobrazhensky notes, the very terms λατρεια and προσκυνησις were not sufficiently fully and accurately defined at the Council of 787. For example, it is not at all explained why λατρεια “befits the Divine nature alone” 214. For Rev. For Theodore, such questions do not exist, because for him, in principle, worship is “multiform.” “Worship is one only in relation to God; in relation to others, the worship is different...” 215. It all depends only on who is depicted on the icon and how worthy he is of this veneration. “Not everyone depicted on an icon is worthy of worship,” 216 agrees with the iconoclast St. Theodore, but notices that there are also worthy of worship. “Honor and worship are given even to a simple person, but not faith and worship of God” 217. The difference lies solely in the personality of the worshiped: “... the icon of the Mother of God, as the Mother of God, (the icons of) saints, as the image of saints” 218, etc. Undoubtedly, the “many types” of worship in the teaching of St. Theodora is the basis for a convenient and painless separation of different types of veneration and worship. But this is not the only reason. St. Theodore needed to introduce another basis for dividing worship according to another criterion: not according to the personality of the worshiped, but according to the direction of worship, either to the essence or to the hypostasis. It must be admitted that for St. Theodora is a forced division, since he uses it primarily for one purpose - to divide the worship of the entire Trinity, Christ, as one of the Trinity and the icon. The fact is that the red thread in the works of St. Theodora passes not only a statement about the unity of the worship of the image and prototype, but also about its uniqueness. After all, in the end, “among us Christians, one worship of God is offered to the one holy and consubstantial Trinity by all creation, visible and invisible” 219 . He calls this worship natural, trinitarian 220. He relates it to Christ, both before and after the Incarnation, as being consubstantial in nature with the entire Holy Trinity. But along with it, he introduces another worship, relative or otherwise similar or hypostatic 221. Such worship is also directed to Christ, but it is “hypostatic,” that is, it cannot be directed directly to the entire Trinity. It is directed exclusively to the face of the incarnate Savior and at the same time, most importantly, hypostatic, relative worship can be multiform, that is, rendered to Christ both in the icon and, for example, through the veneration of His holy saints. At the same time, the very worship of Christ in the icon as the prototype in His image remains united, as mentioned above, but now this single worship combines both: natural and hypostatic (God-worshipping and relative). It is both direct and indirect. “He who worships Him worships together the Father and the Holy Spirit, which is what Trinitarian worship and worship consist of; and in relation to the icon it is also worship - for how could it be otherwise, when those who have one power and one glory belong to one veneration and one worship? – however relative, i.e. similar" 222 . The Monk Theodore, thus, dwells on the antinomic conclusion about the unity of natural and hypostatic worship, which at the same time cannot be confused. This diagram is prp. Theodore transferred from the doctrine of the icon of Christ to the doctrine of icons of saints. Put together, this diagram of the relationship of different types of worship looks like this. Each saint is the prototype of his icons. If prototypes are revered, then naturally images too, because worship is one and indivisible. All saints, in turn, are the image and likeness of God. It turns out that veneration of an icon of a saint is relative veneration. And it, like the worship of the image of God, passes to the Prototype Itself, that is, this is already God-honoring worship. Thus, any relative worship, which, according to the word of St. Theodora is performed “for the sake of God” 223, but has a created nature, ultimately being the very Trinity worship. That is, “the Orthodox serve and worship only one God through relative worship of the Most Holy Theotokos, angels, saints and icons of the Lord Jesus Christ and all saints” 224. Systematization of the views of St. Theodora Studita on the dogmatic aspect of icon veneration revealed a clear structure of the saint’s thought. The answer to the question posed by the era of iconoclasm about the correlation between the image and the prototype is the core of his entire system of views: “unity of likeness.” This concept unites all levels of understanding the icon: the existence of the icon “in the likeness”, the presence on it of the “likeness” of the Face of Christ, the contemplation of His Face and, finally, worship also “in the likeness”. “The image in relation exists, and is contemplated, and serves as an object of worship, - due not to the identity of the essence, but to the unity of similarity, by virtue of which the worship of both is one, and not divided by the difference of natures” 225. What is an icon for St. Theodora? This is a work of art (on an equal basis with all other works of art), which, due to the presence of “likeness” on it, i.e. characteristic features of the face of the incarnate God the Word becomes a “mimetic” (μιμητικος) imitative image, reproducing the unchangeable features of the Prototype. “So, every artistic image (τεχνιτη εικων) is a likeness of that (object) of which it serves as an image, and in itself, through reproduction (μιμητικως) shows the appearance of the prototype” 226. The essence of this image is that it provides a two-way connection between the one looking at the image and the prototype. On the one hand, this is nothing more than the revelation of the hypostasis of God the Word in His “likeness”-image, because the icon is hypostatically one due to the unity of similarity with the prototype. Moreover, this connection opens up the opportunity to partake of the goodness of the prototype in “relative communion.” On the other hand, all this can be perceived by the person praying only thanks to his personal faith. Thus, the icon is natural to prayer itself, because prayer is the connection between a person and God. The icon here is a “tool” tested by the Church, with the help of which it is easier for a person to appear before the Creator and worship Him. An icon is, first of all, a worship image and has “unity of worship” with the image captured and contemplated on it. The unity of worship is a direct consequence of the community of image-“likeness”, which equally belongs to both Christ and His image, but at the same time does not merge with them in such a way that it can be thought of separately. Thus, the imprinting of the specific human features of Christ’s face is evidence of His incarnation and perception not of a “universal nature,” but of a specific, individualized one in the hypostasis of the Word. And at the same time it opens up the opportunity to worship Christ Himself, but with that “relative”, “hypostatic” worship, which ascends from the image to the Prototype and elevates the soul of the person praying to pure heartfelt prayer, in which “God-honoring”, “natural” worship of God the Trinity is already performed. The teaching of St. Theodore about the icon - this is his teaching about prayer, prayer as standing before the Trinity Itself! Terminologically, the system of teaching of St. Theodora is clearly aligned in the Chalcedonian spirit. The monk is not afraid to agree with the iconoclasts that Christ is indescribable, indescribable and unworshipable on the icon, but he reveals the one-sidedness of such statements, because at the same time He is both described and depicted and worshiped in the image, since He is as much a person as God - describable and indescribable, depicted and indescribable, worshiped and unworshipable in the icon. In the presented work, an attempt is made to systematically present only the central dogmatic aspect of the teaching on the veneration of icons by St. Theodore and identify the foundations of this teaching. However, other aspects were released or discussed only briefly. For further work in this direction, a significant topic could be the consideration of the spiritual prerequisites of icon veneration based on the study of its ascetic creations. Iconoclastic disputes for St. Theodore the Studite were disputes about the very core of faith: the mystery of the Incarnation and prayer. Even terminologically, his dogma is close to the doctrine of spiritual ascent. For example, an important particular issue that stands directly at the intersection of dogmatics and asceticism is the teaching of St. Theodore on deification in the context of previous and subsequent traditions, where the monk occupies a special position. Formally, he seems to abandon the doctrine of the deifying energies of God and finds alternative ways of expressing this reality of spiritual experience. It is all the more important to pay attention to the spiritual foundations of the teaching about the icon of St. Theodore, since he himself was ready to die for the veneration of icons, as for Christ, and called others to martyrdom for the faith. 1. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. T. VII. Kazan, 1909. 2. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. in II vol. St. Petersburg, 1907. 3. Θεοδορου του στουδιτου. Λογοι αντιρρητικοι. Αθηνα, 1998. 4. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. St. Petersburg, 2002. 5. St. John of Damascus. Three protective words against those who condemn the holy icons. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1993. 6. St. John of Damascus. Three protective words against those who condemn the holy icons. // http://dearfriend.narod.ru/books/other/id/3/index.html (04/10/2007) 7. St. John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox Faith. M., 2003. 8. Creations of St. Athanasius the Great in Russian translation. M., 1862. 9. Creations of St. Basil the Great in Russian translation. M., 1846. 10. Creations of St. Gregory of Nyssa in Russian translation. M., 1862. 11. St. Methodius. A Word about Holy Icons in the Week of Orthodoxy // Afinogenov D. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. pp. 189–195. 12. Andreev I. German and Tarasius Patriarchs of Constantinople. Sergiev Posad, 1907. 13. Afinogenov D. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997 14. Bychkov V.V. Image as a category of Byzantine aesthetics // Byzantine temporary book 34. Moscow, 1973. 15. Bychkov V.V. Corpus Areopagiticum as one of the philosophical and aesthetic sources of Eastern Christian art. Tbilisi, 1977. 16. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. Kiev, 1991. 17. Vasiliev A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire. T. 1. // http://www.krotov.info/libr_min/v/vasilyev/VAA154.htm#vaa154para12 (04/10/2007) 18. Govorun S., priest. One complex Christ // Theological Bulletin No. 4, Sergiev Posad, 2004. 19. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. 20. Davydenkov. O., priest. Dogmatic theology. M., 1997. 21. Davydenkov O., priest. The Greatness of Piety is a mystery: God appears in the flesh. M.: PSTBI, 2002. 22. Davydenkov O., priest. Traditional "Neo-Chalcedonian" Christology. M., 1997. 23. Dobroklonsky A.P. Rev. Theodore. His era, life and work. Odessa, 1913. in II vols. 24. Elpidinsky. General church history. St. Petersburg, 1912. T.II. 25. Lebedev A.P. Ecumenical Councils of the VI, VII and VIII centuries. M., 1897. 26. Lossky V.N. Saint John of Damascus and the Byzantine teaching on spiritual life. Vestnik Rus. Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1968. No. 61. 27. Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. M., 1991. 28. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image // Theological works. No. 14. M., 1975. 29. Meyendorff I., prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M., PSTBI, 2000. 30. Minin P. Main directions of ancient church mysticism. Sergiev Posad, 1916. 31. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes according to the treatise of St. John of Damascus “The first word of defense against those who reject holy icons.” Alpha and Omega, No. 2 (28), No. 3 (29), No. 4 (30), M., 2001. 32. Nikolov P. Theology of the icon (an experience in the historical presentation of the dogma of icon veneration). PhD thesis. Sergiev Posad, 2000. 33. Oksiyuk M. Theopaschite disputes // Theological collection. Vol. II. M: PSTBI, 1999. 34. Priest V. Transfiguration, Saint Tarasius Patriarch of Tsaregrad and the Seventh Ecumenical Council. St. Petersburg, 1893. 35. Priest V. Preobrazhensky, Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. M., 1896. 36. Uspensky L. A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. M., 2001. 37. Florovsky G., prot. Byzantine fathers V-VIII centuries. Publishing house of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006. 38. Florovsky G., prot. Origen, Eusebius and the iconoclastic dispute // Dogma and history. M., 1998. 39. Fomenko V. Prot., Dogmatic meaning of icon veneration. St. Petersburg, 1999. 40. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. Milan-Russia, 1999. Literature in foreign languages: 41. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. Εκδοσεις πεκτοσε, 1998. 42. lamp. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. 43. Parry. Theodore Studites and the Patriarch Nicephoros on Image-Making as a Christian Imperative // ​​Byzantion. (LIX). 1959. pp. 164–183. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1907. T. I. Small announcement LXIII. P. 336. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image // Theological works. No. 14. M., 1975. P. 105. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. Milan-Russia, 1999. P. 194. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 207. Dobroklonsky A.P. Rev. Theodore. His era, life and work. Odessa, 1913. Part 1. P. 105. Excerpts from Eusebius’ letter were read out at the VII Ecumenical Council. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. Kazan, 1909. T. VII. P. 255. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes. Alpha and Omega. No. 3 (29). M., 2001., P. 109 – with reference to scientists: Alexander P. J., Barnard L. W., A. Bryer, J. Herrin. Among Russian scientists, this very widespread point of view is represented, for example, by I. Prot. Meyendorff, V. Lossky, V. Bychkov, etc. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image // Theological works. No. 14. M., 1975. P. 108. Meyendrorff I., prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M., PSTBI, 2000. P. 195. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes. Alpha and Omega. No. 3 (29). M., 2001. P. 110. The only exception is the intermediate triad of sacraments: baptism, Eucharist, confirmation. But this insertion occupies a forced position in Dionysius, as a necessary means for connecting the heavenly and earthly hierarchies, as well as introducing man to this system. see Bychkov V.V. Corpus Areopagiticum as one of the philosophical and aesthetic sources of Eastern Christian art. Tbilisi, 1977. P. 5. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 507. Bychkov V.V. Corpus Areopagiticum as one of the philosophical and aesthetic sources of Eastern Christian art. Tbilisi, 1977. P. 6. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. P. 574. Meyendrorff I., prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. P. 196. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes. Alpha and Omega. No. 3 (29). M., 2001. P. 111. Uspensky L. A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. M., 2001. P. 53. St. Basil the Great. Discourse on the Fourty Martyr Saints. Creations of St. Basil the Great in Russian translation. M., 1846. Part IV. P. 296. Uspensky L. A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. P. 53. St. Gregory of Nyssa. Word about the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Creations in Russian translation. M. 1862, part IV, p. 193. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit. To Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. Ch. 17. Creations of St. Basil the Great in Russian translation. M., 1846., part IV., pp. 381–382. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image // Theological works. No. 14. M., 1975. P. 110–111. St. Athanasius the Great. Against Arians. Book 3. Creations of St. Athanasius the Great in Russian translation. M., 1862. Part II. pp. 386–387. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes. Alpha and Omega. No. 3 (29). M., 2001., p. 114. Davydenkov. O., priest. Dogmatic theology. M., 1997. S., 121. Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. M., 1991. P. 37. cit. translated by Schönborn from Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 130. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. pp. 123–124. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in Russian translation. T. VII., p. 129. Uspensky L. A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. P. 67. see the version of the classification of the accusations of the iconoclasts in the “First Accusatory Word” of St. John of Damascus to Nicholas (Sakharov), Herod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes. Alpha and Omega. No. 2 (28). M., 2001., p. 98. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 159. Andreev I. German and Tarasius Patriarchs of Constantinople. Sergiev Posad, 1907. P. 44. Florovsky G., prot. Byzantine fathers V-VIII centuries. Publishing house of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006. P. 318 St. John of Damascus. The third protective word. Ch. VIII // Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1993. P. 93. St. John of Damascus. The first protective word. Ch. IV // Three protective words against those who condemn the holy icons. S. 4. St. John of Damascus. The first protective word. Ch. XVI // Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. P. 12. Govorun S., priest. One complex Christ // Theological Bulletin No. 4, Sergiev Posad, 2004. P. 151. Florovsky G., prot. Byzantine fathers V-VIII centuries. Publishing house of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006. P. 322. St. John of Damascus. The third protective word. Ch. XXXIV // Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. P. 218. St. John of Damascus. The third protective word. Ch. XXXIII // Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. P. 215. Elpidinsky. General church history. T.II. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 219. Elpidinsky. General church history. T.II. P. 220. Quoted from Vasilyev A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire. T. 1. // http://www.krotov.info/libr_min/v/vasilyev/VAA154.htm#vaa154para12 (04/10/2007) Grossu N., priest. St. Theodore the Studite, his time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 173. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.I.S. 120. St. Methodius. A Word about Holy Icons in the Week of Orthodoxy // Afinogenov D. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. pp. 189–195. Afinogenov D. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 122. Afinogenov D. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). P. 122. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. Εκδοσεις πεκτοσε, 1998. σ. 183–184. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. Εκδοσεις πεκτοσε, 1998. σ. 184. Notes enclosed in parentheses and not otherwise indicated belong to the translator in the TCO edition. All author's notes to quotations in this work are enclosed in parentheses and contain a link to the author in italics. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P.130. Grossu N., priest. St. Theodore the Studite, his time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 169. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 129. The Greek terms here and below are verified according to the edition Αθηνα, 1998. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 123. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 125. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. σ. 185. Nikolov P. Theology of the icon. Sergiev Posad, 2000. P. 66. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. T. VII. P. 232. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. σ. 189. Dobroklonsky A.P. Rev. Theodore. His era, life and work. Part 1. pp. 107–108. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 135. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 162. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 165. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 121. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P.165. Davydenkov O., priest. The Greatness of Piety is a mystery: God appears in the flesh. P. 43. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 160. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. P. 162. Schönborn Christoph. Icon of Christ. P. 208. Κορναρακη. Η θεολογια των ιερον εικονων κατα τον οσιο Θεοδορο το στουδιτη. σ. 111–112 Davydenkov O., priest. The Greatness of Piety is a mystery: God appears in the flesh. pp. 43–44. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Letter to Plato. P. 234. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Letter to Plato. P. 232. An analysis of the system of concepts was successfully carried out by Grossu in the monograph “Reverend Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations." Kiev, 1907. The author of this work conceptually adheres to the division made by Grosso, but makes it more orderly and supplements it with several points that are fundamentally important in the author’s opinion. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. pp. 126–127. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 177. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. P. 199. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T. I. Third refutation. P. 157. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T. I. Third refutation. P. 169. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T. I. Third refutation. P. 159. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T. I. Some questions for iconoclasts. P. 217. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 127. Oksiyuk M. Theopaschite disputes // Theological collection. Vol. II. M: PSTBI, 1999. pp. 36–37. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 168. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Great Announcement I. S. 458. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Minor Announcement LXXIII. P. 351. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 171. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Some questions for iconoclasts. P. 217. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Some questions for iconoclasts. P. 220. see Meyendrorff I., prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M., PSTBI, 2000. P. 203. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXXVI. S., 382 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Some questions for iconoclasts. P. 218. Meyendrorff I., prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. P. 203. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter CLXXIII. P. 566. This fact did not attract the attention of any of the Russian-speaking researchers of the legacy of St. Theodore the Studite, although it is very characteristic both of his theological system in general and, in particular, of ascetic literature. Analysis of this phenomenon in the works of St. Theodora is beyond the scope of this work and may be a topic for a separate study. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 165. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 174. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 160. see Third Rebuttal, paragraphs 1–14. pp. 158–162. “The One who, by His Divinity, remains indescribable, receives a natural description of His body, so that both (natures) may be manifested in reality (πραγμασιν αποδεδεικται) as it is...” Works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1907. T.1. First rebuttal. T.1. P. 120. St. Gregory of Nyssa. Letter to Theophilus of Alexandria. Quote according to Davydenkov. Dogmatic theology. P. 274. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 121. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Some questions for iconoclasts. P. 218. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 120. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. T.1. P. 123. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 123. Another thing is that this “image in the mind” was again understood in different ways; about this, see the section below “Not only depicted, but also contemplated in likeness.” The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third refutation P. 177. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 176. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 169. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 164. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 162. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 182. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 183. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 184. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXIII. P. 365. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. P. 180. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. P. 181. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 188. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 186. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 185. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. P. 183. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. S., 127 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. S., 131 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 131. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter CLI. P. 527. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 132. Nikolai (Sakharov), hierod. On the causes of iconoclastic disputes according to the treatise of St. John of Damascus “The first word of defense against those who reject holy icons.” Alpha and Omega. No. 4 (30). P. 80. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First refutation P. 128. Davydenkov. Dogmatic theology. P. 159. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 128. Nikolov P. Theology of the icon. P. 87. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in Russian translation. T. VII. P. 616. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. pp. 180–181. Uspensky L. A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. P. 135. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XVII. P. 233. St. John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox Faith. M., 2003. P. 242 see, for example, the Works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in the Russian translation. T.1. First rebuttal. P. 123 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 157. the classification of meanings is given according to Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. p. 648–649. see Davydenkov O., priest. Traditional "Neo-Chalcedonian" Christology. M., 1997. pp. 94–119. Davydenkov O., priest. Traditional "Neo-Chalcedonian" Christology. P. 94. Minin’s division, see Minin P. Main directions of ancient church mysticism. Sergiev Posad, 1916. pp. 10–11. Lossky V.N. Saint John of Damascus and the Byzantine teaching on spiritual life. Vestnik Rus. Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1968. No. 61. P. 60. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. P. 285. This point of view is shared, for example, by Schönborn, Meyendorff, Lossky, Florovsky and others. St. John of Damascus. Three protective words against those who condemn the holy icons. // http://dearfriend.narod.ru/books/other/id/3/index.html (04/10/2007) Classification of St. John, see ibid. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. P. 176. With a statement about his motives in this spirit, Rev. Theodore begins quite a few announcements. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Minor Announcement LVIII. P. 330. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. P. 104. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Small announcement LC. P. 377. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter II. P. 204. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Minor announcement LVI. P. 327. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXXVI. P. 383. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter VIII. P. 333. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXXVI. P. 383 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXXVI. P. 379 The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXXVI. P. 380. Florovsky G., prot. speaks about this. Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy; Lossky V.N. Saint John of Damascus and the Byzantine teaching on spiritual life. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 178. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 159. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter LXV. P. 423. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Letter to Plato. P. 231. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics. P. 187. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 180. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Second rebuttal. P. 141. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter XXVII. P. 369. Priest V. Transfiguration, Saint Tarasius Patriarch of Tsaregrad and the Seventh Ecumenical Council. P. 91. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter CLI. T.2. P. 527. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter CCXIII. P. 619. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.2. Letter CXCV. P. 591. Priest V. Preobrazhensky, Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. P. 346. Priest V. Preobrazhensky, Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. P. 352. The works of our venerable father and confessor Theodore the Studite in Russian translation. T.1. Third rebuttal. P. 189.