Reception of the arguments of Rev. John of Damascus in defense of the veneration of icons by the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century

Contents Introduction Chapter 1. Historical overview of the iconoclastic disputes of the 8th and first half of the 9th centuries (“the first and second waves of iconoclasm”). Life and work of St. John of Damascus and the holy fathers - defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century 1.1. Historical overview of the iconoclastic disputes of the 8th century (“the first wave of iconoclasm”) 1.2. Life and work of St. John of Damascus 1.3. Historical overview of iconoclastic disputes in the first half of the 9th century (“second wave of iconoclasm”) 1.4. The life and work of the Greek holy fathers - defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century. Conclusions Chapter 2. Arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration 2.1. First group. Arguments from the theory of image and attitude towards it 2.2. Second group. Arguments from Scripture and Tradition 2.3. Third group. Dogmatic Christological Arguments 2.4. Fourth group. Other dogmatic arguments 2.5. Fifth group. Prohibition on creating images in the decalogue 2.6. Sixth group. Arguments related to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints 2.7. Seventh group. Arguments related to the practical benefits of icons for spiritual life 2.8. Eighth group. Arguments related to the canonical structure of the church Conclusions Chapter 3. The question of the reception of the arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration in the theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century 3.1. Theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century in defense of icon veneration 3.2. The question of the reception of the arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration in the theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century 3.2.1. First group. Arguments from the theory of image and attitude towards it 3.2.2. Second group. Arguments from scripture and tradition 3.2.3. Third group. Christological arguments 3.2.4. Fourth group. Other dogmatic arguments 3.2.5. Fifth group. Prohibition of creating images in the decalogue 3.2.6.–3.2.7. Sixth and seventh groups. Arguments related to the Most Holy Theotokos, saints and the practical benefits of icons for spiritual life 3.2.8. Eighth group. arguments related to the canonical structure of the church 3.2.9. Ninth group. Arguments that could not be classified into the existing classification compiled according to the argumentation of St. John and those not found in him Conclusions Conclusion List of used literature The final stage in the formation of theology of the era of the Ecumenical Councils is the time of iconoclastic disputes, which stretched over the 8th and first half of the 9th centuries. The beginning of the formation of Orthodox theology of the icon, as a theory of the image, as well as various aspects of the argumentation in defense of icon veneration in the 8th century, was the theological activity of St. John of Damascus. The culmination of this process was the VII Ecumenical Council of 787 under the leadership of St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century, and above all St. Theodore the Studite, Saints Nikephoros and Methodius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, stood at the end of a long period of iconoclastic disputes in theological terms and to a certain extent accepted and developed his argumentation. The theology of icon veneration, on the one hand, is based on the conclusions of previous Ecumenical Councils, and on the other hand, it introduces some thematic novelty and offers a number of independent and important provisions. In this regard, the question of the reception of theological arguments in defense of icon veneration expressed by St. John of Damascus, as a representative of the first stage of iconoclastic disputes (i.e. the 8th century), the holy fathers of the second stage of iconoclastic disputes (i.e. the first half of the 9th century). It seems reasonable to give an answer both about the extent and nature of the coincidences in the argumentation, and the volume and novelty of the later holy fathers’ own argumentation, an attempt to adapt and develop the relevant provisions, and then raise and resolve the question of reception. This defines the purpose of the work. The objectives of the work are: 1) consideration of the historical context of each stage of the iconoclastic disputes, as well as the life and work of these holy fathers; 2) analysis, classification and systematization of the arguments of the prp. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration; 3) analysis, classification and systematization of the arguments of the holy fathers - defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century. in defense of icon veneration; 4) their comparison with the theology of St. John of Damascus based on the classification compiled; 4) assessment of the extent and nature of similarities and differences in argumentation; 5) Solving the issue of reception of argumentation. The object of the study is the prose works of the above-mentioned holy fathers, compiled by them in defense of icon veneration during two stages of iconoclastic disputes, subsequently translated and published in Russian. The subject of the study is the similarities and differences in the arguments in defense of the veneration of icons by St. John of Damascus in the works of defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century. (St. Theodore the Studite, St. Nikephoros and St. Methodius of Constantinople). The work is limited to the use of only dogmatic and polemical prose works of four Greek authors (St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Nikephoros and St. Methodius of Constantinople) on relevant topics, translated into Russian. In this regard, the work did not use the hymnographic texts of St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Methodius of Constantinople, St. confessors Theodore and Theophan the Inscribed, and other saints of this era. The dogmatic decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council of 787 are considered in our work in a condensed form as part of the historical and theological context of the first stage of iconoclastic disputes. Review of the research source base. The main source for the theological component of the first part of this work is the work “Three Words against those who reproach holy icons" 1 (edition of Greek text: PG. 94. Col. 1227–1420) St. John of Damascus, expressing the full range of theological argumentation on the issue under consideration. This work was compiled by Rev. John in different years of his life, between 726 and 750, and only later was put together. “Three words” St. John includes three appendices (one for each of the words) with extensive patristic material that directly or indirectly confirms the author’s theses. Also, to illustrate the presence of St. John of certain ideas that are absent in the Three Words, but found in other works, are presented fragments of his comprehensive dogmatic work “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” 2 (edition of the Greek text: PG. 94. Col. 790–1226) and the christological treatise “On the properties of two natures in one Christ” 3, written by the reverend father in the same period. The theology of the second part of the work is based on the works of defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century. A major work by Rev. Theodore Studite's Three Refutations of the Iconoclasts 4 (edition of Greek text: PG. 99. Col. 327–435) was written between 816 and 820. This work allows us to evaluate the general and special in relation to the theology of its Damascus predecessor. As a supplement, “Chapters against the Iconoclasts” 5 (edition of the Greek text: PG. 99. Col. 485–498) by St. Theodore, compiled by the saint in 816–817, as well as the “Epistle to Plato, the spiritual father” 6 (edition of the Greek text: PG. 99. Col. 499–504) from 817. The teaching of St. Nikephoros of Constantinople against iconoclasm is considered on the basis of his main dogmatic and polemical works: the so-called. “Great Protective Word” 7, “Objections” 8 (edition of the Greek text: PG. 100. Col. 205–812) and “Small Protective Word” 9 (edition of the Greek text: PG. 100. Col. 833–850), compiled by the saint in exile between 815 and 820. In these works of St. Nikephoros develops his own theology in defense of holy icons, and also denounces and refutes the heretical argumentation of his opponents. Saint Methodius of Constantinople is known for his only short anti-iconoclast work, entitled “The Tale of the Holy Icons,” 10 which was written between 821 and 841. In the work of St. Methodius contains a substantiation of several basic theses in defense of the veneration of icons, done meaningfully in a fairly traditional manner. The theoretical and methodological base includes scientific works of various authors, partly dealing in their works with the theological argumentation of saints in defense of icon veneration. "Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries." prot. George Florovsky 11 with a brief author's interpretation of the meaning of theology in defense of the veneration of icons of the reverend father. “The Meaning of Icons” 12 is a joint work of famous representatives of the Russian emigration of the twentieth century V.N. Lossky and prof. L. A. Uspensky, originally compiled for a Western audience and only less than 10 years ago translated into Russian. In addition to the art historical examination of the icon, the work presents the theological aspect of the phenomenon using the argumentation of the writings of the Venerable John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite. Prof.'s work L.A. Uspensky “Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church” 13, which largely repeats the conclusions of the previous work that interest us. Labor V.V. Bychkova “Small History of Byzantine Aesthetics” 14 gives an overview of the theology of icon worshipers of the periods under consideration from the point of view, first of all, of philosophy and the history of aesthetics. To consider the argumentation of Rev. John's commentary on the Three Words of St. John was used as research literature. John of Damascus Professor A.A. Bronzov, who is their translator into Russian 15. In the introduction to the Three Words, the author gave a scientific commentary, where he indicated the main theme of each chapter, touched upon the issue of time, purpose, authenticity and sources of writing of the Three Words. Recently published in Russian, G. Kapriev’s work “Byzantine Philosophy. Four centers of synthesis" 16, in which the author examines in detail the theology of St. John, makes a number of conclusions and generalizations regarding, among other things, his theology in defense of icons. Article by prot. E. Lauta in the Orthodox Encyclopedia, dedicated to St. John of Damascus 17 and the work of Jerome. N. Sakharova “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” 18. In the last work, the author, among other things, draws a conclusion about the influence of Christological issues on the iconoclastic polemics of the first wave of iconoclasm. Theology of icon veneration by St. Theodore is represented in Russian literature to a lesser extent. This is primarily a monograph by Fr. Nicholas Grossu “Reverend Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations” 19, which examines the historical and theological aspect of the participation of the Studian abbot in iconoclastic disputes. Quite a lot of attention is paid to the theological part, an analysis of the argumentation is presented, key theses are highlighted, etc. In a more condensed form, the argumentation of St. Theodore's defense of icon veneration is analyzed in the work of St. Vasily Preobrazhensky about “Reverend Theodore the Studite and His Time” 20. In the article by I.I. Sokolov “Reverend Theodore the Studite, his church-social and theological-literary activities” provides an overview of the life of the reverend father and briefly outlines the main ideas and themes of his works. 21 Large-scale study by A.P. Dobroklonsky "St. Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studium” 22, the first part of which examines the historical aspect of the era, provides critical comments on some opinions of researchers, in particular priest. N. Grossu, describes in detail the life and work of St. Theodore, and the second part talks about the written heritage of the reverend father, mostly letters, and also presents a source analysis of the works. The main researcher of theological argumentation is St. Nikifor is L.V. Lukhovitsky. The work uses his dissertation “The main theological and polemical work of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople “Apologeticus atque Antirrhetici”: the experience of a comprehensive historical and philological analysis” 23, which examines the theological argumentation of the saint mainly from a philological point of view, but in some detail, drawing on the context relevant to this work, other works of the holy father for comparison, etc., as well as an article in the Orthodox Encyclopedias dedicated to this saint 24. There are practically no works in Russian devoted to the theology of St. Methodius in defense of icon veneration. This issue partially concerns D.E. Afinogenov in his work “The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784–847)” 25; an article in the Orthodox Encyclopedia by the same author is also used. 26 Our work also uses sources to illuminate the historical context of theological disputes. The above monographs by A.P. Dobroklonskogo 27 etc. Nikolai Grossu 28. Monograph of the priest. Vasily Preobrazhensky about “Reverend Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826.” 29, dedicated, among other things, to historical events surrounding the life of St. Theodore, the emperors of Byzantium, their policies towards the Church, the activities of St. Theodore as the studio abbot and as a theologian and participant in political processes in the empire. Work by D.E. Afinogenov “The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclast Crisis in Byzantium” 30, which provided rich material for work in connection with a comprehensive consideration of both the historical and theological aspects of the events taking place and the assessment of iconoclasm as a dogmatic and political phenomenon. The work also used the work of G.A. Ostrogorsky “History of the Byzantine State” 31 (originally published in 1963), A.V. Kartashev “Ecumenical Councils” 32, published after the death of the author in 1963 and professor V.V. Bolotov “Lectures on the history of the ancient Church” 33. Also, to highlight the historical aspect of iconoclastic disputes, the work uses articles from the Orthodox Encyclopedia: P.V. Kuzenkova - “The VII Ecumenical Council” 34 and “The Councils of Constantinople” 35; L.V. Lukhovitsky "Jeriy Cathedral". The relevance of the work is determined by the content of anti-iconoclastic theology, which is connected, first of all, with Christological issues, touches on and reveals the threats of erroneous understanding and interpretation of the theology of the Ecumenical Councils both in the times of the above-mentioned icon-worshipping fathers and in the theology of today. The Orthodox attitude towards holy icons and relics today is criticized by the entire spectrum of false teachings of Protestants, and the nature of the accusations of the accusers has much in common with the accusations of the iconoclasts. In addition, a correct attitude towards icons also carries an ascetic meaning for a believer. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in the main available domestic studies, an attempt has been made to raise and resolve a particular question about the reception of polemical argumentation in defense of the veneration of icons of St. John of Damascus as a representative of the first period of the iconoclastic era in the theology of the holy fathers of the iconoclasm of the second period of iconoclasm and the degree of this reception, based on the author’s method of classifying arguments into thematic groups and then their comparative analysis. The theoretical significance of the work lies in the attempt at a deeper analytical understanding of the theology of the icon in its connection with Christological issues and a better understanding of the teachings of the Orthodox Church in its historical and theological aspect. Practical significance is associated with a number of aspects: in missionary activity, the argumentation of the defenders of icon veneration, its continuity in the Church of the first millennium, may be useful in polemics with some modern heretical movements in Christianity that reject icon veneration; in pastoral work, the argumentation of the holy fathers of the two periods of iconoclastic disputes can become auxiliary material for the formation of the correct Christian attitude towards icons among believers. The main methods used in the work are classification, systematization, conceptual and terminological analysis, comparative analysis and generalization. The work is divided into three chapters, the first of which provides a historical overview of the first and second stages of the iconoclastic disputes, and also examines the life and work of St. John of Damascus, Saints Nicephorus and Methodius, St. Theodora Studite. In addition, the chapter briefly presents the arguments of the main iconoclastic council of 754, to which we have assigned short titles to simplify their subsequent use in the dogmatic part of the work. The second chapter presents the argument of St. John, which is classified into thematic groups and arranged according to the criterion of proximity to Revelation and the teaching of the Church. The first group, however, presents arguments related to the theory of image and worship as a philosophical and conceptual basis. Then follow arguments from Scripture and Tradition; dogmatic – Christological arguments; the arguments are dogmatic, but non-Christological; arguments related to the interpretation of the Decalogue; arguments related to the veneration of the Mother of God and saints; arguments related to the practical use of icons for spiritual life and the theme of canonical structure and power in the Church. The third chapter characterizes the theology of the holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm, then their theological argumentation in defense of icon veneration is analyzed in accordance with the classification proposed in the second chapter; after this, conclusions are drawn about the possible reception of the prp’s arguments. John by the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century by highlighting general and original arguments, the degree of development of argumentation, and the possibility of indirect or direct quotation. Chapter 1. Historical overview of the iconoclastic disputes of the 8th and first half of the 9th centuries (“the first and second waves of iconoclasm”). Life and work of St. John of Damascus and the holy fathers - defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century 1.1. Historical overview of the iconoclastic disputes of the 8th century ("first wave of iconoclasm") As researchers note, a critical attitude towards sacred images arose sporadically in the Church even before the 8th century. Since the emergence of open iconography in the 4th century, the first Christian opponents of religious images appeared. Some information has been preserved about the negative attitude towards images of Christ among Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Epiphany of Cyprus. Another factor in strengthening iconoclastic sentiments is considered to be the Monophysite heresy, the theology of which tends to belittle human nature in Christ. At the end of the 5th century, the bishop of Hierapolis (Syria) had the intention of abolishing icons in his diocese. He denied the images of Christ, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and angels Sevier of Antioch. There is evidence of saints defending icons from certain deniers or insulters in the 6th century. There was also a disciplinary, rather than theological, struggle with icons: some bishops removed icons due to the superstitious attitude of their flock towards them. Thus, Bishop Seren (Marseille) tore and threw away the icons from the church, considering their veneration by the flock superstitious. The appeal of St. Gregory the Great, who praises Serenus for showing reckless zeal, but condemns him for the destruction of icons, calling the latter books for the illiterate and demanding their restoration and teaching the flock the correct way to venerate icons 36. According to Professor V.V. Bolotov, the reasons for the emergence of iconoclasm cannot be considered the petty or subjective motives of the iconoclast rulers of the 8th–9th centuries. The author proposes to consider this phenomenon not as a unique dogmatic contradiction, but as part of a more complex political anticlerical process associated with the emergence and development of opposition to the traditional Byzantine political-economic structure 37 . A.V. Kartashev believes that the reasons for iconoclasm were precisely the economic and material aspect of the confrontation between secular and spiritual authorities, which subsequently led to the growth of the confrontation to a certain scale 38. At the theological level, polemics on the topic of veneration of icons are first known from the writings of Armenian authors of the 7th century 39 . In 717, the throne of Constantinople was occupied by Emperor Leo III (685–741) 40, who usurped the power of Theodosius III. According to modern researchers, Emperor Leo was from Syria, not Isauria 41. The new ruler of Byzantium had iconoclastic views, the reason for which could be both the origin of the emperor from a Monophysite environment, and the influence of Judaism and, more likely, Islam with their negative attitude towards sacred images. Leo III was culturally loyal to the Arab world; his contemporaries called him a “Saracin.” In addition, before ascending the throne, Leo III spent a long time in the east of the empire in the border areas as a strategist of the Anatolic theme, being in constant contact with the Arabs. Thanks to major military victories and administrative reforms, the emperor strengthened his power and ten years after the start of his reign he began to fight against the icons. Iconoclasm arose sporadically in various parts of the empire, and above all those that belonged to a greater or lesser extent to Monophysitism 42 . The Umayyad Caliphate (in whose capital, Damascus, St. John of Damascus was born) 43 began an iconoclastic policy several years before Emperor Leo. Byzantine sources report only about Caliph Yazid II, who demanded the destruction of images of Christian saints. Previously, his predecessor had issued a similar decree, and it was about the destruction of any images of living beings that were used for worship 44 . This was fully consistent with the norms of Muslim piety. Further, iconoclasm began to spread in Asia Minor. Since 726, Emperor Leo III has openly opposed the veneration of icons. At first this was expressed in the making of public speeches calling on believers to abandon the veneration of icons. Unfortunately, the works of the emperor himself have not survived, from which one could learn the iconoclastic ideas of Leo III. Only two messages to the emperor are known from Pope Gregory II, which have come down to us not in the original edition 45. If you trust these messages, you can conclude about the iconoclastic beliefs of the emperor: icons are a relic of idolatry; the second commandment of the Decalogue prohibits icons; Ecumenical Councils do not prescribe the creation of icons; there are abuses associated with the veneration of the substance of icons and the calling of martyrs as gods 46 . Modern researchers agree that Leo III issued his first and only edict against icon veneration only in 730. 47 During the first years of the open struggle against icon veneration, the emperor tried to act prudently and for a long time did not make serious administrative decisions, but negotiated with the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, from whom, however, he could not find even partial support. As a result, Leo III had no other means left to inculcate iconoclasm other than violence: the Orthodox patriarch was deposed, a loyal candidate was elevated to the throne, who approved the edict, which ordered the destruction of all sacred images and the persecution of their admirers 48 . The emperor's decision led to a political break with Rome. The resulting gap had far-reaching consequences: the political division laid the foundation for the acquisition of temporal power by the popes and the final fall of the West from Orthodoxy in the 11th century 49 . After the death of Leo III, in 743, after several coups, the throne passed to his son and co-ruler, Constantine V (718–775). Constantine V, following the example of his father, gained authority among the people and the army with major military victories over the Arabs, who were greatly weakened by civil strife in the mid-740s. He acted similarly in the tactics of combating icon veneration: in the first years he took a wait-and-see attitude and looked for loyal supporters from the clergy. After a decade of preparatory work, Constantine decided to implement his iconoclastic plan by convening a church council. To ensure the proper composition of the cathedral, the ruler appointed supporters of iconoclasm to the episcopal sees, and also created new sees with loyal bishops. In addition, the iconoclasts held meetings at which leading rhetoricians spoke, and active opponents of iconoclasm were arrested and kept in custody until the opening of the cathedral 50. About thirty works came out of the emperor’s hands, of which today’s researchers know only two, surviving in fragments. Constantine V brought theological polemics with icon venerators to a new level. There were different understandings of the meaning of the image and the prototype: in the case of Constantine V, almost complete identity was established between them, including in essence 51 . But the most important and even innovative thing in the theological polemic was that after the publication of the emperor’s works, a new, Christological plane opened up for discussion (since before Constantine V, the rhetoric of the iconoclasts was based on opposition to idolatry). The Emperor argued that it was impossible to portray Christ truthfully, since He was the bearer of the divine nature. The nature of the argument returns the discussion to the Monophysite problematic. Prepared by the emperor, the Council of Hieria in Constantinople began work in February 754. There were 338 bishops present at the council and there was not a single patriarch of the local Orthodox Church or their representatives, since Patriarch Anastasius died at the end of 753, and other local Churches did not send their representatives. The Council of 754 based its decisions on Christological argumentation, while at the same time avoiding expressions that could be considered Monophysite 52 . Below are the main arguments of the iconoclasts, expressed in the decisions of the council (each of which is given an abbreviated and conventional name in parentheses for ease of subsequent use in the text of the work): • icon veneration is the heresy of idolatry (Idolatry Argument); • Christ is both God and man. By calling the icon by His name, the icon painter described (and thereby limited) not only created flesh, but also the Divinity, which is uncreated and indescribable. Thus, he either introduced a fusion of natures that were not merged according to Oros of the IV Ecumenical Council of 451, which is Monophysitism; or the division of Christ into two Persons, which is affirmed by Nestorianism (Argument from the Indescribability of the Godhead); • the true icon of Christ is the Eucharist (Eucharistic argument); • icons have no basis in Tradition (Argument from Tradition); • the ban on the veneration of icons also applies to images of the Mother of God and saints (their icons turn out to be idols) (Argument about the Saints); • Christ should be worshiped “with the eyes of the mind” (The Spiritual Worship Argument); • The Hypostasis of God the Word after the Incarnation is indescribable and It cannot be represented in human form and depicted with material colors (Argument about the indescribability of the Hypostasis); • “The “animated icons” of saints are their virtues, and not their faces depicted in soulless colors” (Argument about the virtues of saints); • Worship of icons is prohibited 53 . The council (later called the “headless” false council by the Orthodox) rejected all sacred images. In addition, the council ordered the destruction of all icons and anathematized the leaders and apologists of icon veneration: John of Damascus, Patr. Herman and George of Cyprus 54. The implementation of the decisions of the iconoclastic council of 754 was carried out by the emperor with the help of violence. In fact, a new page has opened in the history of the persecution of Orthodoxy. Everywhere holy icons were destroyed and replaced with secular portraits of the emperor, scenes of military battles and hunting with his participation, images of animals, plants, etc. Church art was denied the right to exist, its place was taken by secular art. These processes were actively opposed by supporters of icon veneration. A civil confrontation arose in the empire, the most active phase of which occurred in the sixties of the 8th century. The emperor executed nineteen senior government officials and officers. The main force resisting the implementation of the imperial policy was monasticism, which suffered the most as a result of persecution. As historian G.A. points out. Ostrogorsky, the persecution of icon venerators over time took on the character of a campaign against monasticism: monastics were persecuted for their very belonging to their class, forced to abandon their chosen path of service, monasteries were closed, they were turned into barracks or other public buildings, land plots were confiscated. As a result, we can talk about a full-scale struggle against monasticism and the ownership of monasteries in the empire. At the same time, it would be a mistake to assert that the purpose of iconoclasm was the fight against monasticism. The latter was only a concomitant phenomenon, the scale of which was determined by the intransigence of the monastics’ position and the intensity of the confrontation itself 55 . During the entire period of iconoclasm, almost no works of Christian church art were created56. After the death of Constantine V, his son, Leo IV the Khazar (750–780), became emperor, who tried to be at peace with the icon-worshipers and their opponents: on the one hand, iconoclasm remained the dominant confession in the empire, on the other, the icon-worshipers were not persecuted (with the exception of isolated episodes). In 780, Leo IV died and his wife, the Holy Empress Irene (752–803), who revered icons, became the head of the empire. At this time, the patriarchal see in Constantinople was occupied by Patr. Paul, who retired in 784 and pointed out to the empress the earlier anathemas of iconoclasm from other local Orthodox Churches, warning her about the difficult situation of the Church of Constantinople and pointing out the need to convene an Ecumenical Council to restore the veneration of icons 57. Patr.'s successor Paul became St. Tarasius (730–806), former layman and state dignitary. The future saint demanded the restoration of communion with the local Orthodox Churches of the East and West through the convening of an Ecumenical Council as a condition for his election to the patriarchal see. The saint was elected patriarch at the end of 784, and at the same time preparations began for the convening of the VII Ecumenical Council. At the beginning, opposition to the convocation of an ecumenical council arose among the iconoclast bishops and the army, which honored the memory of Constantine V, and the first attempt to convene a council in 786 was thwarted. However, the empress was able to overcome the resistance through various measures, and on September 24, 787, the VII Ecumenical Council was opened in Nicaea. From the moment of his election until the end of the VII Ecumenical Council, Patriarch Tarasius did a great deal of work both in organizing it and in substantiating the Orthodox position refuting iconoclasm. In particular, researchers point out that the saint processed a large amount of patristic material and prepared an impressive base of evidence from the Holy Scriptures to refute the iconoclastic theology of the Council of 754, which were presented at the VII Ecumenical Council in its 4th and 5th sessions 58; drew up a detailed program of meetings of the council 59. In addition, there is some agreement among researchers that the extensive and unnamed refutations from the 6th session of the VII Ecumenical Council, read in response to the definitions of the iconoclastic council of 754, were also compiled by St. Tarasiem 60. It seems necessary to reflect the theological results of the Council as the most important stage in the history of the development of iconoclastic disputes, which has an impact on the theology of icon venerators of the next stage of disputes. Let us present the main theological provisions of the conciliar definition of the VII Ecumenical Council 61: • The creation of “picturesque icon images” is commanded in Church Tradition; • Icons express and confirm the fact of the Gospel preaching and the true Incarnation of God the Word, which brings benefit to believers, being evidence of these events; • Icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, saints and angels are equal in veneration to the image of the honest and life-giving Cross of the Lord; • Icons should be accepted, but they must depict reliable events that correspond to the gospel narrative, as well as everything that was visibly revealed to people; • Icons serve as a means of remembering prototypes, which is beneficial for spiritual life; • Kissing, veneration and worship of icons is fundamentally different from “true service”, which is rendered to “the divine nature alone”; • “The honor given to an icon relates to its prototype and the one who worships the icon worships the hypostasis of the person depicted on it”; • We describe Christ according to human nature; • Adoration and kissing are the same terms in relation to icons. It is impossible to kiss what you do not love and what you do not worship and vice versa; • “Service” is due to God alone, “worship” is given to both God and creatures (different in kind), and “honor” is given to creatures only. Also in the decisions of the Council it is said: about various types of worship (imperial power; due only to fear; as a sign of gratitude; for the sake of receiving rewards) 62 ; about pictorial art from the point of view of the theory of image; about the mental nature of the division of the natures of Christ; about the absence of properties of the prototype in the icon; about the similarity of the icon with the prototype by name, and not by essence; about the faithful attitude towards the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ; about the connection between figurativeness and verbal gospel storytelling; about the condemnation of those who consider matter something vile; about the need for sensory things for “the knowledge of every divine and pious tradition and for the remembrance of it” 63. The Council proclaimed eternal memory, among others, etc. John of Damascus 64. This Council formally ends the so-called. "the first wave of iconoclasm." 1.2. Life and work of St. John of Damascus Information about the life of St. Quite a few of John of Damascus have survived. The main sources are several versions of the lives of the saint (Arabic and Greek), reports about him by church writers and chroniclers, especially Theophanes, Zonara, Kedrin 65. The Holy Father was born at the end of the 7th century in Damascus, the capital of Syria, which was then under Arab rule, to pious Christian parents. The saint's father was the chief treasurer of the Damascus caliph. Soon after birth, the father of St. John baptized him and searched for his son for a pious and experienced teacher, whom he found in the person of a captive monk named Cosmas, whose teaching his father entrusted to the saint. John and his half-brother, also named Cosmas. The brothers succeeded in their studies, which was facilitated by the talent of the teacher. After completing his studies and the death of his father, St. John received the inheritance and received the position of the caliph's closest adviser 66. While in public service, Rev. John wrote works against the Monophysites. With the advent of Emperor Leo III and his iconoclastic policies, the Holy Father opposed the policies of the Byzantine emperor by denouncing iconoclasm as a doctrine in his First “Defense against those who reject holy icons.” The second word on the same topic is St. John composed it after Emperor Leo III issued an edict against icon veneration, prohibiting the painting of icons, worshiping them and demanding the destruction of all existing sacred images in the empire. The venerable father preached veneration of icons and denounced iconoclasm during his communications with Christians who came to Damascus, and also wrote letters to the believers of Constantinople, which became very popular among Christians in the capital and other places in the empire. In response, Leo III slandered St. John before the caliph, who believed the slander and cut off the saint’s right hand, which later miraculously became healthy through the fervent prayer of the holy father to the Most Holy Theotokos before Her icon. The miraculous healing prompted the saint to leave the world, distribute his property to the poor and relatives, and enter the Lavra of St. Savva near Jerusalem 67. At the Lavra, the holy father led an ascetic life, remained in obedience to the elder, and began to show his talent in composing liturgical chants. Rev. there. John conducted theological work aimed at protecting the teachings of the Church from the attacks of heretics. For his zealous ascetic life and extraordinary works in the theological and hymnographic fields, the saint was elevated to the rank of presbyter of the Jerusalem Church. The venerable father ended his days in the Lavra of St. Savva. The exact year of the death of St. Petersburg is unknown. John of Damascus, but in any case, the venerable father died earlier than 787, since in the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council he was revered as deceased and eternal remembrance was proclaimed 68. The anathemas of the false council of 754 contain the words that “The Trinity deposed all three,” i.e. St. Herman I, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. George I, Archbishop. Cyprus and etc. John of Damascus; Based on these words, some believe that St. John died before 754. St. John of Damascus in his theological writings is a continuator of the polemical tradition of Palestinian monasticism, which arose after the IV Ecumenical Council and was expressed in the preservation and defense of Chalcedonian theology 69 . It is difficult to overestimate the extensive theological and hymnographic creativity of the saint. As A. Bronzov points out, the first defensive word was written after the promulgation of the first ban on the veneration of St. icons by Leo in 726. The first word appeared before 730, since there Patr. Herman still occupies the capital's see (left by him in 730. The second word was written no earlier than 730, since it mentions the abandonment of Patriarch Herman of the patriarchal see in January 730, and also due to the fact that the accusatory tone of the Second Word is much sharper in comparison with the First Word, which may indicate news that reached St. John about the intensification of persecution and unrest, caused by the actions of the emperor at the beginning of 730. On the other hand, St. John does not mention anything about the anathematization of all enemies of icon veneration by Pope Gregory in 731, which speaks in favor of the fact that the Second Word was written in the period 730–731 as a response to the emperor’s ban on all religious images 70. There is little data to estimate the time of writing of the Third Protective Word. According to indirect signs, namely due to the fact that the topic of icon veneration is presented in the Third Word more systematically and with richer evidentiary material in comparison with the first two words, this Word is put by scientists as the last 71. According to prof. V.V. Bolotova, The first word of defense was written by St. John in 726–727. The second word is after 730, and some time later the Third Protective Word 72 is written. The purpose of writing Three Words is a practically significant work that refutes the arguments of opponents and allows everyone who wants or hesitates to verify the truth of the Orthodox attitude towards icons and the validity of the position of icon venerators. This explains the similarity, and sometimes even repetition, of many places in each of the Three Protective Words. The first protective word of St. John begins with a reference to the Decalogue, in which there is a prohibition to worship idols, but there is a call to worship the true God; in connection with the Incarnation, God the Word became visible, which opens up the possibility of writing His images (chapter 4). In response to the iconoclasts’ appeal to the Old Testament ban on sacred images, St. John of Damascus emphasizes that those who object to the veneration of icons do not understand the true meaning of the prohibitions established by the Old Testament and extending to images of pagan idols (chap. 5-7). According to the Reverend Father, Orthodox Christian icon-worshippers are not in danger of being accused of idolatry, therefore they can depict the incarnate Lord and the events of His earthly life (chapter 8). Next, the saint gives the concept of an image and its types (chap. 9–13), as well as the concept of worship and its types (chap. 14), after which he says that God, who in the Old Testament commanded to make images of Cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, etc., did not thereby prohibit the making of other sacred images (chap. 15). St. John teaches that the image of God according to His Divine nature is impossible, and therefore it was prohibited; but it is possible to depict God incarnate according to His humanity; one should also worship God incarnate in the form of His flesh; one should honor the substances and objects with the assistance of which God accomplished the salvation of people (chapter 16). The spiritual and practical significance of sacred images is that they sanctify vision and are a kind of books for the illiterate (chapter 17), remind us of the Incarnation of God the Word (chapter 18). As the saint teaches, it is possible and necessary to make images not only of Christ, but also of the Mother of God and the saints as those who suffered with Him, as participants in His grace, which manifests itself in their bodies (holy relics) even after death (chapter 19). Therefore, following the example of Solomon, who decorated the Old Testament church with images, Christian churches should be decorated with icons of saints (chapter 20), who are the army of Christ, His friends, in whose honor Christians build churches and whose death does not now mean irretrievable loss and transition into oblivion (chapter 21). Next, Rev. John argues that the image of God incarnate has a powerful moral impulse and arouses competition among believers (chapter 22). According to Damascus, the entire previous Holy Tradition of the Church of Christ clearly testifies to the veneration of icons (chapter 23). Links of opponents of prp. John's prohibitions on images in Scripture are actually prohibitions on the idolization of images (ch. 24); their references to the words of St. The Epiphany of Cyprus against icon veneration is not important for a number of reasons (chapter 25). In conclusion, John of Damascus gives examples of the worship of man-made objects in the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition and explains that it is not the worship of created objects as such that is prohibited, but images of demons or idols (Chapter 26), which is proven by examples of the worship of the prophets to Angels, the prophet Moses with the ancient Jews of man-made religious objects, etc. (Chapter 27). Below are 20 excerpts from the holy fathers and teachers of the Church in defense of icon veneration with the addition of comments to them by St. John 73. In the “Second Protective Word” St. John of Damascus begins his speech by justifying the Orthodox, who do not depict the invisible God, do not deify images, but depict the incarnate Lord (chapter 5). According to the saint, contemplation of images of Christ and saints sanctifies us and leads to a desire to imitate them, which excites demons to fight with icons (chapter 6). Partially repeating his argument from the First Word, the Reverend Father argues that opponents of icons, referring to Scripture, misunderstand the meaning of what is written: the prohibition to depict God and give glory to His creations was for the Jews a “medicine” that protected them from the temptation of idolatry (chapter 7); in turn, proof of the Jews’ penchant for idolatry is the golden calf cast at their request (Ex. 32:4) (chap. 8–9). Turning to the question of the purpose of holy icons, the saint teaches that in every endeavor one should seek the true goal: for sacred images this is the glory of God and His saints, therefore their creation is correct and useful (chapter 10). St. John rejects images of immaterial things (i.e. unincarnate) God, as well as images glorifying demons; while depictions of the deeds of holy people, on the contrary, are acceptable and dishonor the devil (chapter 11). In connection with the expulsion of the Orthodox Patriarch Herman by Emperor Leo III, the saint touches on the topic of the power of the kings of the earth in the Church: kings and rulers do not have the right to issue church laws and interfere in matters of the doctrine of the Church, which is proven by numerous references to the Holy Scriptures (chap. 12:16). The next argument is related to the attitude towards matter: iconoclasts, like the Manichaeans (who considered matter to be a dark principle, the source of all imperfection and struggle), while all of God's creation is beautiful; in addition, through matter we worship the Creator of matter (chap. 13–14). Further (chapter 15) the saint repeats the argument of the holy army of Christ, set out in the 21st chapter of the First Word. Next (chapter 18) the argument about St. Epiphany, set out in ch. 25 First Word. The Reverend Father compares the veneration of the Cross of the Lord and other similar objects with the veneration of icons (chap. 19), and also shows that images have been around since the beginning of human history and are present in the Sacred History of the Old Testament (chapter 20). The saint draws an analogy that just as he who swears by the Church swears by the One who lives in it, so he who swears by an icon swears by what is depicted on it (chapter 21). This is followed by 27 excerpts from patristic literature, of which 20 are repetitions of quotations from the First Word 74. The third protective word of St. John of Damascus begins with a thesis about the image of God incarnate (chap. 1–2). Further, the saint affirms the sanctification of believers through the contemplation of icons of the Lord and saints (chapter 3). The thesis of Chapter 7 of the Second Word is repeated about the misunderstanding by opponents of the meaning of the prohibition of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament on the creation of images for Jews prone to idolatry (chap. 4-5). The Reverend Father teaches that, according to the command of God, one should worship and believe only in Him alone, and one should not (in the same way) worship the creature (ch. 6); and also that in Scripture one should understand not the letter, but the meaning, which prohibits serving the creature more than the Creator and worshiping the creature with ministerial worship (chap. 7). However, as the saint emphasizes, the prohibition that applied to the Old Testament Jews does not bind Christians depicting the incarnate Lord and various events of His life (chapter 8); in addition, even Moses built a likeness of the heavenly tabernacle and did not violate the prohibition of making likenesses (chapter 9). Next, Rev. John proves that anyone who rebels against icons turns out to be an enemy of Christ, the Mother of God and the saints (chapter 10), and also refers to Tradition as an irrefutable source of proof of icon veneration (chapter 11). The saint then partially repeats the argument from Chapter 17 of the First Word about the sanctification of believers through icons, adding that contemplating them elevates us to spiritual things (Chapter 12). As evidence of the importance of icons, the saint cites an episode from the life of Abba Theodore Eliot (chapter 13). Then Rev. John poses a number of questions regarding sacred images (chapter 14) and worship (chapter 15) and gives answers to them: about the concept of icons (chapter 16); about the purpose of using icons (chapter 17); about types of images (chap. 18–23); about what can be depicted and what cannot (chapters 24–25); about who originated the creation of images (chapter 26); on the concept of worship (ch. 27); about types of worship (chap. 28-32); about what and how one can worship (chap. 33–39); about worship, which is expressed only to God (ch. 40); that the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype (chapter 41). What follows are 90 patristic quotations, of which 11 have already been given in the First and Second Defensive Words. Relatively few of the excerpts are accompanied by comments from St. John 75. In the extensive work of St. John “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” 76 chapters 15 and 16 books. 4 are dedicated to saints, the veneration of their relics and separately to the topic of icons. In addition, the work contains Christological chapters directly related to iconoclastic argumentation (book 3, chapters 6, 7, 11). Christology, which is important for the work, is also present in the treatise of St. John “On the properties of the two natures in one Christ” 77. 1.3. Historical overview of iconoclastic disputes in the first half of the 9th century (“second wave of iconoclasm”) As a result of a palace coup in 802, Emperor Nicephorus I became the head of Byzantium, ruling until 811. This ruler was Orthodox in his views on icon veneration. The emperor's policy towards the Church was also expressed in the fact that more moderate circles were supported, and the attitude towards the monastic party became tougher. To elect a patriarch, Emperor Nikephoros convened a church council in 806, at which he nominated his candidate, the former asicrite (secretary, official of the secret office of the Byzantine emperor) Nikephoros (758–828). There is a well-known attempt by Emperor Nikephoros I to remove the figure of the emperor from the influence of the canons of the Church. For this purpose, the emperor organized a council, at which the so-called “Michian” case related to the illegal marriage of Emperor Constantine VI with Theodota while his legal wife Maria was still alive 78. Having resumed consideration of the case of Constantine VI at a new council in 806, Emperor Nikephoros I achieved recognition of the illegal marriage of his predecessor and the acceptance into communion of Patriarch Nikephoros of the deposed patriarch. Tarasius of Presbyter Joseph, which led to disagreements with the monastic party and gradually resulted in another indignation of monasticism, at the center of which was St. Theodore (by that time hegumen of the Studite monastery) 79. However, this was not a classical schism; the Studites only avoided concelebrating with the patriarchs. Nikephoros in the Cathedral of St. Sofia, since Presbyter Joseph served there. The monks expressed their disagreement covertly and, in general, Patriarch Nicephorus could not take their opposition into account 80. In response to the ongoing Studite indignation, which was revealed in 808 in connection with the refusal of a bishop loyal to the Studites to concelebrate with Patr. Nicephorus, the emperor convened another council to consider the actual schism on the part of the Studite monks. Presence at the cathedral of Patr. Nikephoros is questioned by some historians, 81 while others believe that the saint was the main initiator of the council in connection with the acute phase of the confrontation with St. Theodore at that time 82. The Council condemned St. Theodore, deposed him and sent him into exile 83. The letter of St. Theodore, in which he directly called the patriarch a heresiarch 84. In 811, as a result of a military campaign, Nikephoros I was killed. This event seriously damaged the prestige of the empire and brought years of trials 85. The next emperor was Michael Rangave (770–844), who was elevated to the throne by the army and the senate. Ruled for two years, until 813, Michael turned out to be a weak ruler, subject to the influence of his environment. At the same time, the emperor strictly adhered to icon veneration and was a faithful member of the Church. Each of the Orthodox parties - the conservative Studites and the moderate higher hierarchy - sought to gain their own influence before the loyal imperial power 86. Emperor Michael was overthrown by the strategist of the Anatolic theme Leo the Armenian (775–820, later Emperor Leo V), who a month earlier ensured Michael's loss in the battle with Krum by ordering his own troops to retreat contrary to the command for the general offensive. The usurper was a protege of the Asia Minor lands of the Empire, in which iconoclasm flourished, so the main policy lines of the new emperor were the restoration of the military power of the empire and the inculcation of iconoclasm. After resolving pressing military issues, Leo V went on the offensive against the church party of icon worshipers. Iconoclasm in the eyes of the common people led to success in foreign policy, which was facilitated by the decline of the state under Emperor Michael I. The new ruler, thus, turned out to be the spokesman for the aspirations of the majority 87. Readiness of St. Nikephoros's suffering for his Orthodox views did not stop Emperor Leo, who took active action against icon worshipers in the capital 88 . The activities of the emperor led to the unification of the efforts of the leaders of icon veneration - Patriarch Nicephorus and St. Theodora Studite. As a result of the confrontation between the emperor and the Orthodox, in 815 Patriarch Nicephorus was deposed, and in his place the emperor installed an iconoclast candidate, Theodotus Cassiter. The decisions of the next iconoclastic council in 815, convened by Emperor Leo to legitimize his own policy of persecution, repeated the arguments of the Council of 754 in less harsh formulations; they ordered the destruction of icons without recognizing them as idols; An anathema was pronounced to the icon-venerators. Then came the link of St. Theodore and some of his followers. All church opposition to the iconoclasts continued to consider St. Nikephoros as the legal primate of the Church of Constantinople throughout the latter’s exile. The rather stormy and large-scale iconoclastic policy of Leo V did not find the support of the people that his predecessors Leo III and Constantine V had. Five years later, in 820, Leo V was killed by supporters of Michael II (770–829), who soon took the place of emperor 89. Michael II ruled until 829 and pursued a policy of non-interference in church affairs. However, the icon worshipers were not allowed to restore the state of affairs that existed before the accession of Leo V. They received only the free confession of their own views outside the capital and the absence of oppression from the imperial authorities. The last heyday of iconoclasm in Byzantium was the reign of Michael II's son, Theophilus (813–842), who reigned from 829 to 842. The excellent education received from the iconoclast John the Grammar, as well as exposure to the influence of Arab art, left no other way for the formation of Emperor Theophilus’ attitude towards icons. In 837, John the Grammaticus ascended the patriarchal throne, the persecution of icon venerators moved into an acute phase and, as a little less than a century earlier, turned into a fight against monasticism. However, the struggle of the Byzantine government with icons in the 9th century did not have such a scale, intensity and thoroughness: the developed theology of icon veneration, approved and consolidated by the Ecumenical Council, could not be seriously challenged; The fight against the defenders of icons mainly took place in the capital region. The death of the emperor in January 842 finally brought down all the activity of the persecutors 90 . After the death of the imp. Theophila, his wife, Saint Theodora (815–867), began to prepare for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the empire, since she was a secret admirer of icons. In 843, a Council was held in the capital of the empire, which removed John the Grammar and finally approved the veneration of icons. Also at the Council of 843, St. Methodius (788–847), and the late Emperor Theophilus was rehabilitated and recognized as Orthodox (probably for political reasons or in connection with repentance on his deathbed, as the Empress assured the Council) 91 . The restoration of icon veneration was marked by a solemn day on the first Sunday of Great Lent in 843, which marked the beginning of the celebration of the corresponding church-wide holiday. The dogmatic part of the Council, as well as the “ecumenical” status, were absent, since all theology and confession had already been adopted at the VII Ecumenical Council 92. 1.4. The life and work of the Greek holy fathers - defenders of icon veneration in the first half of the 9th century The future Patriarch Nicephorus enjoyed popular love in Byzantium as an educated man, a benefactor and trustee of the Church 93 . He belonged to the moderate wing of church-authority circles in terms of his attitude towards iconoclasm 94 . Researcher D.E. Afinogenov, based on the letters of St. Theodora, believes that between Patriarch Nicephorus and St. Theodore at the beginning of the 9th century there was a serious confrontation in connection with the schismatic behavior of the Studites, that is, the non-recognition of St. Nikephoros by the Orthodox Patriarch and accusing him of the Michian heresy 95. Also Professor A.P. Dobroklonsky points to the dubious practice of expressing their own disagreement with the church policy of the patriarch among the Studite monks in the form of their withdrawal from communication with the Primate of the Church 96. The favor of the next emperor Michael towards the clergy led to the strengthening of the influence of the monastic studio party led by St. Theodore: the abbot was returned from exile and renounced the accusations of heresy against the primate 97. In connection with the iconoclastic position of the new emperor Leo V, St. Nikifor was recognized as the leader of the opposition of icon worshipers. The new leader of the iconoclastic movement was the court scholar John the Grammar, who in 814 was given the task of collecting materials for theological defense of the positions of iconoclasm at the upcoming council. Emperor Leo V tried to persuade St. Nikephoros made concessions to the iconoclastic party, but the latter refused to compromise with Orthodoxy. In response to the persecution that began from Leo V, St. Nikephoros convened a Council, which unanimously accepted the patriarch's proposal on the need to remain in unity, true faith and harmony, so that the enemy could not gain the upper hand by introducing division 98. The council was followed by the emperor's demand to arrange an interview with the iconoclasts, to which St. Nikifor and etc. Theodore answered the emperor that communication and discussion of the issue with heretics is impossible, since the Church already has an indisputable, conciliar and Orthodox teaching on icons, which should be accepted and the emperor defended, and then any division in the state will be healed. The emperor insisted, and then St. Theodore put forward a different argument related to the lack of grounds for the emperor to interfere in the affairs of the Church 99 . Patriarch Nikephoros was sent into exile by Leo V with permission to take his own library, which allowed him to refer to a large number of sources when writing polemical works against the iconoclasts 100. St. Theodore, having learned about what had happened, protested and held a religious procession around the walls of the Studite monastery, with chants glorifying the icons 101. After St. Theodore was ordered to go into exile; he gathered the Studite monks and ordered them to disperse in small groups throughout the empire in order to carry out activities to protect icon veneration and Orthodoxy. In the link, Rev. Theodore corresponded with monks in dispersion and numerous like-minded people, strengthening and guiding them in defending the Orthodox faith 102. St. Theodore, in his messages sent from exile, repeatedly pointed out that the iconoclasts separated themselves from the “five-headed body of the Church”, since they were out of communion with both the patriarch. Nicephorus, and with the other four patriarchates that share the Orthodox teaching on icons 103. Conditions for staying in exile Theodore's life deteriorated, including from the point of view of the possibility of communication with the outside world through correspondence. Nevertheless, the venerable father's extensive correspondence from exile played a significant role in the defense of icon veneration during the reign of Emperor Leo V 104. During the reign of the next emperor, Michael II, the exiled St. Theodore was able to free himself and then arrive in the capital. First Rev. Theodore visited Patr. Nikephoros, who sent a message to Emperor Michael II outlining the true teaching of the Church regarding icons and asking for the restoration of icon veneration in the empire. In response, the emperor decided to maintain the state of church affairs in the same state in which he accepted the empire when he came to power. Michael II prohibited conversations both in support and against icons, and declared non-recognition of all previous councils concerning both the approval and condemnation of sacred images. In dialogue with Michael II for St. Theodora and St. Nicephorus, it was obvious that agreeing to conduct an interview with heretics puts the secular authorities in the position of a judge of the Church in matters of dogmatic teaching, which is unacceptable 105. At the end of his life, the Studi abbot labored in the monastery of St. Tryphon near Nicomedia. Until the end of his days, he corresponded with Orthodox Christians from all parts of the empire, proving fidelity and the importance of standing in the true faith. Possessing enormous authority, his voice continued to organize and consolidate supporters of icon veneration in the empire in the first half of the 9th century. The abbot of Studium died in 826. St. Nikephoros died in exile in 828 106. When the veneration of icons was restored at the cathedral of 843 under Patr. Methodius I, St. Nikifor and etc. Theodore 107 were rehabilitated, and in the Synodikon of the Week of Orthodoxy a proclamation of eternal memory appeared to the two holy icon-worshipping fathers 108. Saint Methodius became another figure who took part in the defense of icon veneration both as a church leader and as a theologian. From 813 the saint was archdeacon of St. Nikephoros I, and then became abbot, and after the deposition of St. Nikephoros, in 817 received the task of going to Rome and convincing Pope Paschal I not to recognize the iconoclastic church hierarchy that arose in Byzantium. St. Methodius completed this mission, and after the death of Leo V in 821 he returned to the capital of Byzantium, where, on charges of a state crime, he was scourged and imprisoned, where he spent a long time and lost his health. Towards the beginning of the 840s, Emperor Theophilus released St. Methodius was released from captivity and transferred under supervision to the palace of Constantinople. After his elevation to the patriarchal see in 843, St. Methodius conducted quite active and even radical intra-church activities aimed at cleansing the clergy of the iconoclastic “element.” In 847, Patriarch Methodius performed the solemn transfer of the relics of St. Nikephoros I to Constantinople 109. During the iconoclastic disputes, two more holy fathers were present in Constantinople who wrote works in defense of icon veneration, these were the venerable confessors and brothers Theodore and Theophanes. The holy brothers denounced the emperors Leo V, Michael II and Theophilus for iconoclasm, for which they endured many sorrows and tortures, in honor of which they received the corresponding names. The Monk Theophan is primarily a compiler of hymnographic texts, and his work “Four Books Against the Jews” 110 is also known. Due to the lack of dogmatic prose works of these authors in Russian, their works are not considered in the work. The second period of iconoclasm enriched Orthodox theology with a number of polemical works in defense of icon veneration. For St. Theodore, this is primarily a work known in Russian translation as “Refutations,” or “Three Refutations of the Iconoclasts” 111. In the First Refutation, the Holy Father reveals the theme of the pictorial depiction of Christ and the doctrine of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, with the 40 depictability of human nature, then explains the passages of Holy Scripture disputed by the iconoclasts and ends with the anathematisms of the iconoclastic teaching. In the Second Refutation, the Monk Theodore gives a refutation of that part of the iconoclasts who recognized the images of Christ, but rejected the worship of His icons. It speaks of the connection between the image and the prototype, but the absence of their consubstantiality is proven. In the Third Refutation, the Holy Father gives a syllogistic justification for the depictability of Christ according to humanity, and also argues that the image is contemplated in Christ in the same way as Christ is in the image. In addition, the saints develop a theoretical concept of the natural and artificial image; It also speaks of a single worship of the prototype and image of Christ. The last refutation completes the discussion about the hypostatic similarity of the image and the prototype, as well as about their unity of name. The essay “Seven Chapters Against the Iconoclasts” 112 refutes the opinion of the iconoclasts that the Orthodox idolize icons due to their worship; The saint also explains why Scripture says nothing about the icon of Christ. Further, the saint explains why those who are baptized are marked and demons are driven away with the image of the Cross of Christ, and not with His icon. In the conclusion, several patristic quotations are explained on which the iconoclasts tried to build their own evidence. The work “Epistle to Plato, the Spiritual Father” 113 talks about the relationship between the prototype and the icon, as well as the meaning that is invested in the worship of the icon. Saint Nikephoros also left behind a number of works, which are considered in the work as sources of theology in defense of icon veneration. These include, first of all, the “Great Defense” 114, dedicated to the refutation of the iconoclastic argument about idolatry, and the “Objections” 115, which has three parts and is devoted to the refutation of the teachings of Constantine V, which is not fully reflected in the decrees of the council of 754, as well as proof of the thesis that emperors do not have the power to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church and, above all, to try to influence to Her creed. The work “Little Protective Word” 116 was written at the time when St. Nikephoros had not yet been sent into exile and was solving the problem of preparing the Church to resist the iconoclastic party that was gaining power 117 . In this work, Saint Nikephoros placed responsibility for the first stage of iconoclasm on the imperial power and argued that official doctrinal polemics with the iconoclasts, within the framework of the new council, were inadmissible for the Orthodox. Work of St. Methodius' "Tale of the Holy Icons" 118 ends the second period of iconoclast disputes and contains a confession of faith and a number of arguments against the iconoclasts. The main theme that the saint speaks about in his rather brief essay is the describability of Christ in connection with the flesh perceived and inseparable from Him. The difference between icons and idols is discussed, and the members of the iconoclastic council of 754 are denounced. The denial of icons was not some completely unknown phenomenon for the Church. At the beginning of the 8th century, reasons were created for the emergence of a church crisis, which in the doctrinal aspect was expressed in the heresy of iconoclasm. The emperors took turns persecuting icon worshipers. Constantine V convened a council in 754, which gave a dogmatic justification for iconoclasm and prohibited the worship of icons. The decisions of the Council were implemented by violent means. In Damascus at the end of the 7th century, St. John of Damascus. The reverend father was engaged in writing anti-heretical, including anti-iconoclastic works. As a result of this activity, the saint was slandered, suffered and received miraculous healing through the prayers of the Mother of God, for which reason he left the world and entered a monastery near Jerusalem. The exact year of the saint’s death is not known, however The VII Ecumenical Council of 787 was the most important stage in the period of iconoclastic disputes and expressed a theology that had an influence on subsequent iconoclastic authors. The conciliar definitions contained a fairly short list of dogmatic provisions, largely based on the validity of icon veneration from the point of view of Church Tradition. The second stage of iconoclastic disputes was the first half of the 9th century. Under Emperor Nikephoros I, the future St. was elected patriarch. Nikifor. Soon the iconoclast Leo V stood at the head of the empire: Saint Nikephoros was deposed and sent into exile at the council of 815. Soon St. Petersburg went into exile. Theodore and some of his followers. St. Theodore continued active correspondence in order to defend the veneration of icons and refute opponents' arguments. The last flowering of iconoclasm occurred under Emperor Theophilus. In 842, the emperor died, and in 843, under the Orthodox empress, Saint Theodora, a council was held, which confirmed St. Methodius I, who is also the compiler of iconoclastic works. At the cathedral of 843 St. Nikifor and etc. Theodore were rehabilitated and glorified. Chapter 2. Arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration This chapter presents the argument of St. John, taken primarily from his Three Words of Defense. For simplicity and effective comparison, the argumentation is classified into thematic groups and arranged according to the criterion of proximity to Revelation and the teaching of the Church. The first group, however, presents arguments related to the theory of image and worship, and the philosophical understanding of these concepts, as well as the definition of these concepts and their divisions. This group is put in first place, since dogmas and, in general, the very possibility of arguing something would be impossible without some philosophical and conceptual basis. Then, according to the hierarchy of attitude to the teachings of the Church, arguments from Scripture and Tradition are arranged. Further, as part of Tradition, but separated into a separate, third group, there are dogmatic Christological arguments. Christology is at the center of the polemics of St. John of Damascus with the iconoclasts, both in complexity, volume of arguments, and in the attention to it from the polemicizing parties. The fourth group includes dogmatic, but non-Christological arguments. The separation of the third and fourth groups was made for ease of subsequent comparison. Then there are arguments related to the interpretation of St. John's prohibitions on images in the Decalogue. After them are arguments related to the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints, which touches on the dogmatic theme of the presence of God's grace in material objects, relics, etc., however, the general theme seems worthy of being highlighted as a separate topic. In conclusion, a group of arguments is presented related to the practical use of icons for spiritual life and the theme of the canonical structure and power in the Church. 2.1. First group. Arguments from the theory of image and attitude towards it St. John gives an explanation of the basic terms of his icon-veneration teaching. And in the first place are such concepts as prototype and image. The European image is the thing itself, which is recognized in the image, which determines their connection. An image or image (Εἰκών) is a similarity (ὁμοίωμα) (or sample, or imprint) with the distinctive properties of the prototype, while at the same time differing from it in some respect. Moreover, the image is not in all respects similar to the prototype 119. For example, an image of a person, expressing the shape of his body, does not contain his bones, flesh, or spiritual forces, since he does not think, does not feel, and does not live. The image serves a good purpose: to show a person what is hidden from his limited mind by time or space - events, phenomena, objects or people of the past and present. According to the philosopher and historian of aesthetics V.V. Bychkov, such an understanding of the image is an expression of Platonism adopted by Christianity. 120 Next, the saint lists the types of images (or images): 1) natural image (when the image is consubstantial with the prototype, just as the Son is a natural image of the Father); 2) an image as a representation in God of what has to be from Him, as divine “ideas” (“images and samples of what has to be from Him are [God’s] idea of ​​each of these objects” 121); 3) man as the image of God; 4) images from the Holy Scriptures, weakly and imperfectly, by analogy, describing the invisible and incorporeal - God or angels (due to human inability to rise to the contemplation of spiritual objects without the help of created objects related to us). For example, the image of the sun, ray and light, given to understand the unity and trinity in the Holy Trinity; 5) images that foreshadow and pre-depict the future (as the Burning Bush depicted the Mother of God, and the Copper Serpent depicted Christ, etc.); 6) images established to recall past events. Also images of the future and the past: prototypes and monuments 122. The first two images are uncreated, the third to sixth images are created, and the sixth image is not only created, but also man-made. The saint classifies icons as created, man-made images, installed to remember what happened. Such images are presented in two ways: the memory occurs either through words in the book, since “writing expresses the word through an image”; either through sensory contemplation, i.e. through various objects, for example manna and the rod in the Icon of the Covenant, or through the icons themselves 123. Prophecies and visions of the Old Testament by St. John also calls icons or images 124. As added by Prof. L. A. Uspensky, such images reveal not the nature of the Divinity and not the Hypostasis of the Trinity, but the glory of God 125. Next, Rev. John moves on to the concept of worship. Worship (προσκύνησις) is a sign of submission, reverence and humility. It is divided into two types in connection with the concepts of service (λατρεία) and veneration (τιμή). Worship given only to God, who by His nature is the only one worthy of worship, is called ministerial (κατὰ λατρείαν) 126. This worship comes in various forms: worship given out of intense love and wonder, or out of His natural glory; worship given as gratitude for the benefits shown to us, since we owe everything that happens to God; worship in connection with the lack of goods and the hope of receiving them from God, since we know that without His will we cannot do or acquire anything; as well as worship during repentance and confession of our sins, since when we sin, we then ask God to forgive our mistakes and atrocities 127. A different kind of worship - the so-called. “respectful worship” (τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις), which can be religious or non-religious. If we are talking about the first type, then it is given mostly to creations associated with God or for the sake of God and is divided into types: a) worship of the “friends of God” on whom God rested thanks to their will: the Angels, the Mother of God and the saints. Then to everyone who chooses what is good (God helps such people to achieve the good itself); b) worship of creations, in the presence of which God accomplished the salvation of people, for example: the Tree of the Cross, Mount Sinai, the Holy Sepulcher, etc., as well as every church and place “where the name of God is pronounced” 128; c) worship of what is dedicated to God: the Holy Gospel and other books, liturgical objects; d) worship of images that were revealed to the prophets who contemplated God in figurative visions. Also, images of the past and future were revealed to the prophets, such as the rod of Jacob, which was the image of the Savior and which Jacob bowed to before his death (Heb. 11:21). The same type includes images of the Cross of the Lord, iconographic images of Christ, the Mother of God and saints 129. However, Rev. John expands the circle of reverent worship beyond the boundaries of religious worship and speaks of such, rather secular, types of it as: e) worshiping each other, thereby expressing humility to the other as the image of God and the one who fulfills His will 130; f) worship of those in authority as God's chosen rulers in accordance with the commandment; g) worship of benefactors or those whom we ask for some benefits to ourselves, or slaves to their masters 131. Next, John of Damascus moves on to reveal the connection between the two most important concepts of his teaching - the image and the prototype: the honor that is given to the image goes to the prototype and belongs to it. This statement is illustrated by a reference to St. Basil the Great. The Holy Father gives the example of worshiping the image of a king: when we give glory to the image of a king, then no other king arises to whom the glory given belongs, but the image of the king is for us the king himself. In the same way, the glory that we express by looking at someone’s image is not different, given only to the image, but the same one that we express to the prototype itself. Researcher V.V. Lepakhin adds that the most important function of the icon is the prayer function, therefore prayerful veneration is also raised to the prototype to which the prayer itself is addressed 132. All people, angels, objects and substances in general (the Tree of the Cross, every church and other objects) that served the salvation of the human race and participated in divine activity are worshiped in connection with this activity of the Lord, and not because of the nature of these creations 133. This argument is revealed in more detail by the Holy Father in the section on arguments related to the Mother of God and the saints. The argumentation of this group shows that the thesis of the iconoclasts about the consubstantiality of the image and the prototype is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the meaning of these terms. 2.2. Second group. Arguments from Scripture and Tradition All three Words contain references to the New and Old Testaments, directly or indirectly confirming the validity of the creation, veneration and worship of images and images. The Reverend Father approaches the text of Scripture carefully and in detail and discovers hidden approval and recognition of the images in many episodes of the sacred texts. For example, in Matthew 13:16–17, the Lord Jesus Christ directly tells the disciples that the prophets and righteous people wanted to see everything that the apostles see. From this Damascene concludes that Christians also want to see those events to the greatest extent possible, for which they resort to icons 134. According to Rev. John of Damascus, God Himself was the first to make and show the image, since the Lord created the first man in His image (Gen. 1:26). Then, the Old Testament prophets and righteous people saw images of God in revelations. We are talking about theophanies, theophany of the Old Testament. However, Damascus theologically distinguishes these phenomena from the essence of God, which remains invisible and unknowable. According to Damascus, the burning bush was an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to Rev. George Florovsky, the Tabernacle and similar bodily images, symbolically show some invisible, “incorporeal and mental contemplation” 135. The list of similar examples from Holy Scripture given by Damascus could be continued. The argument of the iconoclasts that since there are no direct indications in the Holy Scriptures about the creation of icons of the Savior and saints 136, then there should not be such a legal provision in the Church, is untenable, according to St. John. The norms of church piety are expressed both in writing, through the Holy Scriptures, and secretly transmitted to Christians from the Apostolic Tradition, and these two forms are equivalent in importance 137. The veneration of icons is established in the Holy Tradition of the Church, as evidenced by numerous statements of the holy fathers, a list and quotes of which by St. John gives appendices to each of the Three Words. Most often prp. John refers to St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa. However, in first place is St. John quotes from the Areopagite Corpus in each of the Three Words. In Church Tradition, icon veneration is approved in the same way as, for example, the veneration of the Holy Life-Giving Cross, triple immersion at Baptism, etc. 138 . It should be noted that the cited patristic texts do not always prove the position of icon venerators, but sometimes provide evidence of a more general approving approach to the existence of images in one sense or another (for example, symbolic, like the Burning Bush or the worship of the rod of Patriarch Joseph 139). As a result, the saints conclude that iconoclasm is an innovation that contradicts the Holy Tradition of the Church and Her traditional institutions: if you allow everyone to introduce something new and thereby destroy the building of the Church, which is based on apostolic tradition and conciliar teaching, then this will commit a sin against the Church, dishonor and destruction of Her body. The Iconoclastic Party often quoted St. Epiphanius, who condemned icon veneration. The author of Three Words doubts the authenticity of the authorship of this passage. However, if the corresponding work of St. The Epiphany of Cyprus really belongs to the author; his position, according to St. John, may be associated with the desire to eradicate some ungodly custom associated with distorted veneration of icons. If we assume that the saint was completely against the veneration of icons, then his opinion cannot be considered the opinion of the Church and goes against the entire Church Tradition 140. The argumentation of this group opposes the attempt of the iconoclasts to find confirmation of their own position in the Holy Scriptures and Tradition, that is, in the teachings of the Church. 2.3. Third group. Dogmatic Christological Arguments After the introductory part of Rev. John begins his discussion with Christology and speaks of the Incarnation: “I worship the Creator, who like me was made created... and without experiencing any separation... Together with the King and God, I worship the scarlet of the body... as having become a participant in the same Divinity and, without experiencing any change, becoming that which is and sanctified [it].” 141 Just as the Word, remaining what it was (i.e., God), without undergoing change, became flesh, so the flesh became the Word (i.e., became its own Word and was deified), without losing what it was (human by nature), “being one with the Word in hypostasis” 142. Therefore, the invisible God the Word is depicted on icons as having become visible through the adoption of flesh, that is, “through the image of expressing the flesh of God, which was visible” 143. For a more detailed consideration of the doctrine of the Incarnation, one should turn to its presentation in other authoritative sources. The “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East,” adopted at the Council of Iasi in 1643 and subsequently approved by all Orthodox patriarchs, states that “Our Lord Jesus Christ accepted human nature - true, and not imaginary or illusory. His body was conceived in the womb of the most blessed Virgin... He... became a perfect man, with all human members and a rational soul united with the Divine: and in one and the same Person became true God and true man" 144. The same subject is spoken of in the Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox faith, adopted at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672: “... the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, emptied Himself, that is, took upon Himself in His own Hypostasis human flesh, conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary from the Holy Spirit, and became man; ... He was born ... according to the flesh ... suffered, was buried, rose again in glory on the third day" 145. This aspect of dogmatic argumentation returns the question of the worship of the humanity of Christ together with His Divinity to the theology of the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils on the Person and nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. St. Justin Popovich in his work “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church” prefers to describe the essence of the Incarnation and the teaching about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ by quoting the holy fathers, but sometimes he gives his own generalizations, pointing out, for example, that Christ “in everything except sin, is consubstantial with us according to His human nature, which in Him, as in all people, was expressed through a true human body and through a true human soul.” 146. Next, Rev. Justin quotes St. John: “He was born in a bodily form (σωματικώς), because He became a man; He did not inhabit a pre-created man as a kind of prophet, but He Himself essentially and truly (οὐσιωδὼς καὶ ἀληθώς) became a man, that is, He allowed flesh to exist in His Hypostasis, inspired by the verbal and rational soul, and He Himself became a Hypostasis for it (καὶ αὐτὸς γεγονὼς αὐτῇ ὑπόστασις)" 147 . Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, revealing the content of the teaching about the Face of the Lord Jesus Christ, also refers to St. John of Damascus and states that “in Christ Jesus, with two natures, Divine and human, there is one Hypostasis, one Person and ... this Hypostasis is precisely the Hypostasis of the Word or the Son of God, which, having taken upon itself and united in itself the human nature with the Divine, remains inseparably one hypostasis of both natures” 148. Prot. Oleg Davydenkov, speaking about the correct understanding of the fact of the suffering and death of God, expresses the same thought in a more modern language: “the hypostatic nature is His own, existing in the Hypostasis of the incarnate God of the Word. ... everything that the human nature of the Savior undergoes is assimilated and relates to one Person - the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity" 149. In this passage, endurance and suffering can be put on a par with imageability, since all these properties relate to human nature. St. John of Damascus also expresses the doctrine of the Word’s taking on flesh into its own Hypostasis: “... just as the Word... without experiencing change, became flesh, so the flesh was taken on by the Word... being united with the Word into hypostasis” 150 (“ταυτιζομένη δὲ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸν Λόγον καθ' ὑπόστασιν" (PG. 94. 1325–1326, AB); “The nature of man became the Son of God by Hypostasis” (“Υἱὸς Θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἐγένετο δὲ φύσις ἀνθρώπου” (PG. 94. 1348A); the two natures in the Body of Christ we receive are inseparably united in the Hypostasis” 151. St. John of Damascus reveals the content of the hypostatic unity in Christ of Divinity and humanity in his work “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”: “He became incarnate, took from her the firstfruits of our mixture, flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, so that the hypostasis of God the Word itself became a hypostasis for the flesh, and what was previously a simple hypostasis of the Word became complex ... from two perfect natures, Divinity and humanity; and She bears the distinctive and distinguishing property of the divine sonship of God the Word, a property by which She is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit; and the distinctive and demarcating properties of the flesh by which She differs both from the Mother and from other people; She bears both the properties of the divine nature, with which She is united with the Father and the Spirit, and the signs of human nature, with which She is united both with the Mother and with us.” 152. This quotation provides a comprehensive explanation of the reason why the holy fathers discussed in this work teach about the imageability of Christ: human nature makes Christ imageable, and the “distinctive and delimiting properties of the flesh” make it possible to depict Christ in His unique human form on the icon. This understanding allows the venerable father to discuss some of the consequences of the Incarnation for icon veneration. In particular, understanding the flesh as a special case of matter or substance, which by definition is depictable, the saint teaches that Christians depict the “visible side of God” 153, that is, the hypostatized flesh with the corresponding “distinctive and delimiting properties.” Also, Christians do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, that is, God the Word, who “became matter,” that is, deigned to “dwell in matter,” through which He accomplished the salvation of people. “Because of the union in one Person of Divinity and humanity, the body of God is God, since it, without changing, became what it is and sanctified [it, but] it [still] remained what it was by nature” 154. Referring to Rev. John of Damascus, famous theologian V.N. Lossky and L.A. Uspensky make a more detailed theological conclusion about the connection between the image and the prototype: the icon of Christ is a figurative transmission of the Chalcedonian definition of faith, since it “depicts the incarnate Divine Person” 155. The image of the Savior presented on the icon is not an image of human or divine nature; on the icon “we... depict His Person, for an icon can only be a personal, hypostatic image,” while nature does not exist independently, but is only contemplated in hypostases 156. The authors repeat the above arguments with reference to St. John: “God the Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, ... perceives human nature, ... becomes visible, ... described” 157. A modern researcher of Byzantine philosophy G. Kapriev points out that for St. John of Damascus, the Incarnation means that due to the hypostatic unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ, what is visible in Him cannot be separated from what is intelligible, therefore the flesh turns out to be worthy of worship through God the Word as His flesh, and not as human flesh in itself 158. According to Georgy Florovsky, St. John is teaching here about the real descriptive (not symbolic) imageability of God after the incarnation. For Rev. John’s veneration of icons is justified by the reality of the Gospel events in history, “the fact of the Incarnation of the Word, accessible and subject to description” 159. “The body of God is God,” therefore the description of Christ through His human image is a genuine image of God Himself, “the image of the Incarnate One is the image of God, and not just an image of the body” 160. Further, according to the teachings of St. John, the incarnation sanctifies, unites the flesh with the Divine and through this makes it worthy of worship by the power of union with God, and not as flesh in itself 161. The possibility and fact of the existence of the icon is based on the fact of the Incarnation, that is, on the describability of the incarnate God-Word 162. “Depicting the Hypostasis of the incarnate God the Word, the icon testifies to the immutability and completeness of His Incarnation” 163. The Incarnation makes God describable in the flesh through the categories of size, shape and color, which makes it possible to depict Him in icons, as well as to worship His images 164 . The argumentation of this group responds to the iconoclastic argument about the indepicability of the Hypostasis and shows how their perplexities are resolved, that is: how the invisible and omnipresent God can be depicted after the Incarnation, who is depicted in the icon of Christ, and for what reason there is no separation or confusion of natures in Christ. they depict the Hypostasis of the incarnate God according to humanity, that is, His hypostatic flesh, while the Divinity of Christ remains unchanged and indescribable; Both natures after the Incarnation constitute one Hypostasis of Christ and are in hypostatic unity, without separating or mixing. 2.4. Fourth group. Other dogmatic arguments First Rev. John speaks of icons belonging to a broader category of sacred and revered objects involved in God: Christians venerate, reverence and adore material objects that took part in the work of the Savior, as filled with divine grace and power. Such objects, for example, include the Tree of the Cross, the Holy Mount, the Holy Sepulcher, the Holy Gospel, sacred objects, or, above all, the Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, either one must deny the worship of all of the above, or allow the worship of icons, “sanctified by the name of God and the friends of God and, for this reason, overshadowed by the grace of the Divine Spirit” 165. Next, the saint speaks about the material of icons and the correct attitude towards it: the substance itself cannot be blamed, since it came from God. It is also wrong to prohibit or despise images based on the fact that they are made of substance, since the Old Testament law commands that various types of substance be offered to God as gifts: gold, fine linen, leather, etc. ( Ex. 35:4-11 ); and also God Himself blesses various types of art of cultivating matter, that is, craft, if it is done for a work pleasing to God (Ex. 31: 1–6) 166. The next argument is related to the need for a person to achieve material objects in achieving spiritually significant goals. A person consists of a soul and a body and therefore it is impossible for him, bypassing the physical, to come to the spiritual. In this regard, through bodily vision a person comes to spiritual contemplation, just as through hearing he comes to an understanding of divine objects 167. The icon is a mirror, adapted to the weakness of the human mind and the coarseness of its physicality, and leading to the contemplation of spiritual objects 168. Prot. Georgy Florovsky argues that this argument of St. John repeats after St. Basil the Great, who said that painting shows through likeness what “the word of narration offers to the ear” 169. As N.N. expresses this argument. Mikhaltsov, “The icon serves as a memory of events from sacred history, which has its central beginning in the Epiphany, that is, in the material birth of the hypostasis of the God-man” 170. This argument is put forward by G.A. Ostrogorsky at the center of the ideological paradigm of icon-worshippers and points out the main reason for the dispute with the iconoclasts: for the Orthodox, spiritual life was reflected in the material world in symbols. The true existence of an object was located outside it, in metaphysical reality, going back to the Platonic ideas of things. This is also related to the attention of St. John to the Corpus Areopagitica, where, in particular, it is indicated that through sensory images believers are raised as much as possible to the contemplation of the divine 171. In the next argument of Rev. John points to another aspect of such a phenomenon as an icon: every icon is not only a sacred object, but also an image. But Christ also “is a living image of the invisible God and an unchanging image” 172 of Him, therefore, one who does not worship an icon for the reason that the icon is only an image should not worship the Son of God. It is impossible to reject any one type of image, such as an icon, without simultaneously rejecting the entire hierarchy of images 173 . This statement is based both on the lines of Holy Scripture, where Christ is called in Col. 1:15 “the image of the invisible God,” and on St.’s own hierarchy of images. John (given in 1 group of arguments of this chapter) 174. The Reverend Father also uses an argument related to the veneration of saints in connection with their communion with God and the nature of such communion: through the image of Christ, the Mother of God and the saints, Christians give honor and worship to God, for whose sake they venerate His friends. The Mother of God and the saints are worthy of worship “not by nature, but as having within themselves One who by nature is worthy of worship” 175. In other words, saints should be revered because God rests in them 176 . This argument can also be attributed to the sixth group of this chapter, but its dogmatic problematics are decisive from the point of view of assigning it to this, fourth group. Returning to the supposed views of Leo III, it can be assumed that the argument of this group refutes the claims of the iconoclasts that icon worshipers treat icons as idols, or revere saints as Gods, or express false veneration for the substance for which the icons are made. To all these arguments of the iconoclasts, St. John gives a theological answer expressing the Orthodox view of the relevant aspects of icon veneration. 2.5. Fifth group. Prohibition on creating images in the decalogue The arguments of this group are a refutation of the iconoclasts who claim that the Decalogue prohibits the creation of any sacred images. According to the interpretation of St. John, the Old Testament commandment to fear God alone and serve only Him (Deut. 6:13), as well as not to make any likeness of created objects and phenomena (Exod. 20: 4–5), are intended to prohibit the service of a creature more than the Creator, and also to prohibit giving ministerial worship to anyone. Moses forbids the Jews, prone to idolatry, only to liken God to any creation by creating sacred images of these creations. In addition, it is prohibited to depict an indescribable and invisible God, which would mean creating a false image in any case 177. This argument is supported by the fact that in the Old Testament there is no absolute prohibition on the creation of both images in general and sacred images in particular. For example, God commanded the creation of images of Cherubim for the lid of the Tabernacle of the Covenant (Ex. 25:18). The Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle are also man-made images, but God commands them to be created because they cannot be used for idolatry. As a result, it can be argued that iconoclasts misunderstand the meaning of the spoken lines of Scripture 178. The other side of this argument for the Reverend Father is that Christians not only know the true God, but are also in grace-filled communion with Him, and therefore are freed from the corresponding tendency towards paganism. Believers also have the God-given ability to discern what can and cannot be depicted. The icons depict the human form of God incarnate, who was previously incorporeal; or, in other words, the likeness of God (who was formerly invisible and limitless) appearing in the flesh and becoming visible, limited, and clothed in the bodily image of God. It is acceptable and even useful to depict everything that happened to Christ in His earthly life, His suffering, His miracles as proof of His divine nature 179 . In addition, the Old Testament prohibition had a temporary and educational significance; it created an obstacle to the possible idolatry of the Jews 180. 2.6. Sixth group. Arguments related to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints This group of arguments is a refutation of the opinion of iconoclasts about the improper deification by the Orthodox of the Mother of God or their iconographic images. As the Venerable teaches. John, to all people, angels, objects and substances in general (the Tree of the Cross, every church and other objects) that served the salvation of the human race and participated in divine activity, worship is given in connection with this activity of the Lord, and not because of the nature of these creations 181. With the assistance of God, the saints became benefactors for Christians, loving servants and saints of God, therefore, by worshiping them, we also please God 182. According to Rev. John of Damascus, who propose to make images of Christ and the Virgin Mary, but not saints, turn out to be enemies of the saints, since they consider the sacred images themselves acceptable, but for some reason they forbid giving honor to the saints, denying them glory. This position of the iconoclasts is refuted by the Holy Scriptures, which repeatedly say that the saints are glorified by the Lord (Gal. 4:7; Rom. 8:17; 1 John 3:2). Saints, during life and after death, are filled with the grace of God, which abides in their souls and bodies both before and after death. Also in the images of saints, grace abides “due to grace and [divine] action” 183. Explaining this argument, Rev. John, researcher G. Kapriev points out that the saints became by grace what God is by nature; whereas the common source and model for such participation in God is the deification of the flesh in the Hypostasis of Christ 184. Also Rev. John compares the saints, who are the army of Christ, with the army of earthly kings. Just as the latter do not deprive themselves of the army, the same should be done with the army of Christ. The saints of God followed in the footsteps of Christ and suffered for Him and according to His example, therefore Christians should not be deprived of the opportunity to honor the saints glorified by God Himself 185 . The depiction of the Mother of God and saints on icons, the construction of churches in their honor is a glorification of their feat for the sake of Christ, their height in God, and also a glorification of human nature after it united with God and deification was revealed 186. 2.7. Seventh group. Arguments related to the practical benefits of icons for spiritual life According to the expression of Rev. John, Christians enter into union with God through the mind. Looking at sacred images in the mind, there is a recollection of the miracles of God, His saving suffering, or the exploits of saints, through which believers remind themselves of God and His highest work. This reminder of God with the help of icons is similar to the same reminder of Him, but with the help of reading the Holy Scriptures, which is why the icons are called St. John a sacred text for the illiterate. Therefore the saint concludes that hearing sacred words, seeing sacred images or reading sacred texts helps the mind of believers to achieve union with God 187 . In addition, the image of a saint helps believers remember their exploits for Christ and suffering for Him, through which Christians are sanctified and inflamed with the desire to imitate the saints. Orthodox churches are built in honor of saints, and if this is so, then there is no reason to prohibit depicting saints on icons. The glorification of the apostles is also justified because even their shadow or apron healed the sick 188. Priest Pavel Florensky calls this argument “reminding,” speaking about the connection between the image and the prototype, when worshipers look at the icons and pray to them 189. In the matter of attitude towards icons, the Reverend Father suggests looking for the true meaning of the image, as well as the goal pursued by the creator of the icon. If the purpose of creating an icon and its meaning is the glory of God and His saints, or competition in virtue, or evasion from vice, or the salvation of the soul, etc., then one should joyfully accept such an image and honor it, and worship and kiss and greet it as the likeness of God incarnate, His saints or His Mother. If the purpose and meaning of creating an icon is glorification, worship or exaltation of the devil or demons; or idolization of images of people or other creatures; or an image of an invisible, incorporeal Deity, etc. – then the creator should be anathematized, and the image itself should be rejected 190. Because of the wicked custom of the Hellenes, the pious custom of the Church 191 should not be destroyed. This group of arguments is intended to demonstrate that icons are not a “relic of idolatry,” but have a very specific, explainable benefit for the spiritual life of believers that does not contradict the Orthodox faith. 2.8. Eighth group. Arguments related to the canonical structure of the church The matter of issuing church norms and establishing dogmas is exclusively in the power of pastors and teachers of the Church, but not kings. The intervention of state rulers in the church structure represents a kind of church doctrinal “robbery.” The removal and expulsion by a ruler of an objectionable head of the Church is an act similar to the act of King Saul, who persecuted the prophet Samuel; or Herod, who killed John the Baptist. In the affairs of this age (that is, in everything in which the ruler is entrusted with the management of the affairs of the people), Christians are submissive to worldly rulers 192. At the same time, a secular ruler cannot tell the Church what dogmas to accept; Likewise, the Church should not succumb to attempts by such rulers to influence its own teaching or governance. To substantiate this thesis, Rev. John quotes two Scriptures: Eph. 4:11–12 and 1 Cor. 12:28 says that to serve in the Church and build up the body of Christ, the Lord appointed apostles, prophets, etc., but not kings 193. Thus, Rev. John of Damascus gives a wide range of arguments, also introducing definitions of terms. An image is understood as a similarity that has both the distinctive properties of the prototype and differs from it to some extent; it shows a person what is hidden from him by time or the limitations of the mind. There are several types of images. Icons refer to images that allow one to remember what happened through sensory contemplation. Worship, in turn, should be understood as a sign of submission, reverence and humility. God is given worship different from all others - service (λατρείαν). Service worship is also divided into several types: servile; because of the glory of God; in gratitude for good deeds; with a request; when repenting. Creation is given a completely different kind of worship, and also has its own divisions, starting from the worship of the Mother of God and the saints as “friends of God”, ending with the worship of slaves of their masters. The icon, as a created object, due to the image contained on it, is given the same worship that was given to the images revealed to the prophets who contemplated God, as well as images of the Cross of the Lord and other images that believers use to remember something important and dear to them. The argumentation of the three words can be arranged in a logical sequence: Christians worship the Creator who descended into creation. Since the flesh became one with the Word according to hypostasis, that is, the flesh of Christ is the flesh of God, then the image of Christ is an image of God according to humanity, or an image of the flesh of God, His visible one. Divinity and humanity were united in one Person, therefore the flesh of God is also God. After the Incarnation, Christ became depictable by human nature, therefore the image of Christ becomes possible on the icon. Due to the imageability of the incarnate God, turning to His image is for believers turning to God himself, and not to an idol or some person. The fact of the Incarnation makes the image of God possible and correct, and the icon of Christ proves the authenticity of the Incarnation. The legality and correctness of the image of God presupposes veneration in various forms and, above all, in the form of worship. Since the glory given to the image passes on to the prototype and belongs to it, it turns out to be correct to worship the iconographic image of Christ as God and express ministerial worship to it. The icon itself, as the material bearer of the highest image of God or His saints, is given not the service worship inherent in God alone, but worship expressing reverence, since these objects are consecrated in the name of God, the Mother of God or the saints and for this reason they become involved in the grace of God. From the words of St. John, we can conclude that every communion with God is a conductor of divine Grace for the one who or what is partaker. The flesh of Christ participates in God to the highest and unique extent - through the hypostatic union with the Divine, and is the basis for all other participation. Saints, as doers of God's will, participate in God with grace, as bearers of the Holy Spirit. The bodies of the saints participate in them and are also the bearer of grace. Icons of saints, in turn, participate in their prototypes (connected with God by grace) through similarity, due to the nature of the image itself. In addition, the icon is connected with the prototype through the name with which it is signed. Due to this connection (icon - saint - God), sacred images are also bearers of divine Grace. In itself, the substance from which icons are made is not subject to contempt, since the substance came from God. The saints and the Mother of God are worthy of worship not because of their human nature, but as partakers of God by grace and as having within them Him who is worthy of worship by His nature. Likewise, an icon is worthy of worship not by its own nature or the composition of the substance of which it is made, but by virtue of the image of God and the saints depicted on it. Every substance and creation that has served the salvation of the human race and participated in divine activity is worshiped in connection with this activity, and not because of the nature of this substance. The next group of arguments is devoted to explanations related to the prohibitions specified in the Decalogue. It has been proven in various ways that the prohibitions are not absolute, but relate to situations where an idol is worshiped instead of God, or when an idol's image or likeness is created. The next group of arguments is related to the practical benefits that icons bring: the image of Christ and the saints sanctifies vision, helps to remember deeds and be kindled to a pious life, serves as a book and messenger of the glory of God and saints for the illiterate. In all these cases, the purpose of creating an icon is noble and therefore the creation of the image and its worship is justified. Then follows a series of accusatory arguments against the iconoclasts: those who reject images reject Christ as the image of the invisible God; those who propose to make images of Christ and the Mother of God, but not to make images of saints, turn out to be enemies of the saints, since allowing images actually prohibits honoring saints through images. Arguments from Scripture are presented in abundance and support many of the theses of the monk. The Old Testament contains a huge number of images conveyed symbolically - for example, the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant were themselves both images and an object of worship for the Jews. To the arguments from the Tradition of St. John refers to the following: the veneration of icons is enshrined in the Tradition of the Church; the traditional right to formulate church norms belongs to pastors and teachers of the church, but not to kings; Iconoclasm is an innovation contrary to Tradition; Icon veneration is confirmed by the huge number of quotes and statements of the holy fathers of the Church cited in Three Words. Also, the attitude of St. can be attributed to the argument from Tradition. John to the criticism of St. Epiphany of Cyprus: on the one hand, St. John raises doubts about the attribution of the work to this author, on the other hand, contrasting the opinion of one St. Epiphany to the opinion of the Church in the person of numerous saints. St. John also points out that the opinion of one saint should not be taken into account if it runs counter to the Tradition of the Church. It is also noteworthy that the Third Word contains few unique arguments and mainly repeats the argumentation of the first two words, slightly supplements the Christological argumentation from the First Word, and also gives a detailed definition of the concepts of “image” and “worship”, showing their various types. Chapter 3. The question of the reception of the arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration in the theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century 3.1. Theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century in defense of icon veneration The Monk Theodore the Studite, in his works defending the veneration of icons, focused his attention primarily on the dogmatic side of the issue. Within the framework of dogmatics in the center of theology of St. Theodore stood on Christology and the theme of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is inseparable from the perception of humanity and, therefore, the depictability of Christ according to humanity. The teaching of St. Theodore can be briefly described through the Incarnation of God the Word, Who becomes describable by humanity, despite the fact that the humanity of Christ in the Incarnation retained all its properties, including describability, and for this reason Christ should be depicted on icons. The second main idea of ​​the Studio abbot is that for icons, as images, Christ is the prototype, despite the fact that the difference between the prototype and the image lies in a different essence, and the similarity lies in identity in likeness. The connection between the image and the prototype is also expressed in the fact that the veneration of the image is the veneration of the prototype. The holy father also uses evidence reductio ad absurdum, revealing logical contradictions in the theses of his opponents, and resorts to references to the holy fathers to substantiate some of his own arguments 194 . The properties of human nature (and above all imaginability) and the immutability of these properties in connection with the hypostatic unity of natures in Christ, St. Theodore pays quite close attention. Also quite a lot is said about the image and the prototype, the relationship between them, the transition of glory and veneration from one to the other, etc. 195. Theology of St. Nikephoros's defense of icons contains not only Christology, but also a systematic application of logic in his own proofs 196 . In addition, the Primate of Constantinople, polemicizing with the writings of Constantine V, defends the thesis of non-interference by imperial and generally secular authorities in the internal affairs of the Church. His polemical writings in defense of iconoclasm are filled with denunciations, and the opponent the emperor himself is called only Mammon. Further, the saint, on the pages of his main iconoclastic works, extensively proves the thesis about the imageability of Christ and His describability after the Incarnation. A significant part is occupied by a refutation of the theology of the iconoclasts, mainly expressed at the Council of 754 and by Constantine V. Saint Methodius, in his work “The Tale of the Holy Icons,” gives a confession of faith and briefly refutes iconoclasm. The work is compiled in a “traditional manner” 197. The main thesis of the saint is the statement about the imageability of Christ according to humanity by virtue of the Incarnation. The saint also touches on the issue of the difference between an icon and an idol. St. Methodius denounces the members of the Council of 754 198 In the theology of the saints under consideration, one can notice accents associated with the influence of the past iconoclastic councils of 754 and 815; these include, first of all, the multifaceted argument about the imageability of Christ. 3.2. The question of the reception of the arguments of St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration in the theology of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century 3.2.1. First group. Arguments from the theory of image and attitude towards it St. Theodore, turning to more general concepts, argues that any body that has three dimensions, color, density and is accessible to touch is describable. God the Word received a body that meets such criteria and it, that is, the perceived body, “in any case exists and is describable” 199. Every image is an image of either a form, or a figure, or a type, or a color. Christ had all this because He took on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and becoming in appearance as a man (Phil. 2:7). The essence of the image lies in the identity of the prototype in similarity and difference with it in essence; this determines the same name for the image and the prototype. Also Rev. Theodore repeats the argument of St. John that the glory that belongs to the likeness or image is inseparable from the glory of the prototype, however, further there is an independent development of thought: what is said about the cause can also be said about what came from it, although in the first case - in the proper sense, due to the nature of the thing, in the last case - in the improper, by the similarity of the name. In addition, the sermon about Christ is carried out through images of Christ, which are expressed by the preacher, which also emphasizes the relationship between the image and the prototype. In the same way, when witnessing and venerating the Cross of the Lord, such testimony occurs through images of the Cross, which confirms the use of images (including icons) 200. The veneration and worship of the image is the veneration and worship of the prototype 201. According to the expression of Rev. Theodore, “when worship is given to Christ, then His image is also worshiped as being in Christ” 202, and vice versa: Christ Himself is worshiped in the image. When believers turn to the icon of Christ, they are actually turning, praying and asking for Christ Himself 203. Referring to St. Basil the Great, St. Theodore gives the same quotation about the king and the image of the king as St. John of Damascus: since we call the image a king, we can glorify the image of the king, the king himself is not divided and “two kings” do not arise 204. The Studio abbot notes that the image is “a seal or imprint, bearing in itself the authentic image (τὸ κύριον εἶδος) of the one by whose name it is called” 205. The difference between an image and a prototype is natural. If we pay attention to the nature of the icon, we see wood, paint, other material, or a painting or sculpture. But, paying attention to the similarity of the icon with the Prototype, achieved through the image, we call it either the image of Christ (as an image in relation to the prototype), or Christ Himself (by the same name) 206. An image that has a natural community with the prototype (Christ in Divinity in relation to God the Father or Christ in humanity in relation to the Mother of God) is called natural, and one that does not have a natural community is called artificial (τεχνητὴ εἰκών) 207 . St. also notices the difference between natural and artificial images. Nikifor 208. The Primate of Constantinople gives the definition of an icon: “a resemblance to a prototype, similarly imprinting the appearance of what is depicted, but differing from it, with a difference in essence, in matter; or... imitation and reflection of the prototype, differing from it in essence and material; or... a work of art created in imitation of the prototype, but differing from it in essence and in matter” 209. Based on the Eucharistic argument of the council of 754, G.A. Ostrogorsky believes that the essence of the dispute with the iconoclasts was that they believed that the icon and its prototype were consubstantial. Such beliefs of iconoclasts, according to the researcher, are based on ideas of an Eastern magical nature that do not understand the differences between the image of a deity and the deity itself 210. Whereas the ideas of icon worshipers were closer to the philosophical system of Platonism, in which there was a relationship and (unnatural) connection between a thing and the idea of ​​​​this thing. This relationship could easily be transferred to the relationship between the image and the prototype, the symbol and its meaning 211. St. Nicephorus calls the position of the iconoclasts absurd, according to which the correct image is consubstantial with the prototype 212. There cannot be a consubstantiality between the image (that is, an artificial image) and the prototype, which is obvious and easy to prove, since a portrait of a person is not reasonable and alive 213. The image is also not in everything similar to the prototype and does not repeat all its features. At the same time, the iconoclasts turned out to be exponents of another idea of ​​Platonism, with which the icon-worshippers also polemicized - this is the attitude towards matter as the lowest and imperfect part of being 214. The worship of the icon is carried out due to the identity of the likeness, and therefore this worship is the same as the worship of the prototype 215. “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. Likewise, it is not the substance [of the icon] that is the object of worship, but the prototype, conceived together with the image” 216. The worship of the image, in turn, is not divided between the prototype and the image according to the “unity of the hypostatic likeness” (τῆς ὑποστατικῆς ὁμοιώσεως 217, this is essentially the same worship of the prototype. The unity of the hypostatic likeness means the unity of similarity found both in the image and in the prototype, which is contemplated and is precisely a hypostasis. This similarity allows us to recognize the prototype, which differs from other persons in its characteristic properties 218 It is precisely because of the common similarity of the image and the prototype that we can speak of a single worship of both. He who sees an image of someone sees in the image a similarity to the prototype, and therefore, when he worships the image, he worships in it the appearance of the prototype, which in the prototype and in the image is identical, and not the image itself. Noteworthy is the remark of G.A. Ostrogorsky, who compares the relationship of the image with the prototype in the theology of icon worshipers with the relationship between the object and its idea in Platonism 220. The dissimilarity of the image with the prototype, which arose on the icon due to inexperienced work or other reasons, does not negate the arguments in favor of veneration of icons, since veneration is carried out due to the existing similarity, and not due to the absence of dissimilarity. As an example, we can cite the huge number of executions of the Cross of the Lord, which does not cancel the veneration of the prototype in them 221. How do they complement St. Feodora V.N. Lossky and L.A. Uspensky, similarity can be limited to “typical fidelity” to the prototype, not expressing its individuality, but being satisfied with the similarity. However, as a rule, the fidelity of the image to the prototype is at such a level that a church person can easily recognize the depicted prototype by the icon 222. The image is called by the name of the prototype according to the “meaning of the name” (τῇ σημασίᾳ τῆς προσηγορίας), and not by nature; therefore, the image receives participation in the name of the prototype, also in its veneration and worship 223. If we recognize the image of the Cross of the Lord as this Cross itself, and call the image the life-giving Cross, then we also need to judge the image of Christ 224. Therefore, any name by which Christ is referred to in the Holy Scriptures can be inscribed on the icon as the name of His image 225. Nothing that is visible with the eyes is devoid of a name, therefore what is called by a name cannot be separated from its name. In this regard, it is impossible to worship only the name, but not to worship the named and vice versa 226. According to the priest. Nicholas Grossu, Rev. Theodore the Studite speaks here about the inextricable internal communion or unity between the icon of Christ and Christ Himself, achieved through the unity of name and likeness 227. He who is worthy of glorification in word is worthy of glorification through image, since hearing is in harmony with sight. In addition, vision has an advantage over hearing in terms of speed of perception and location in the human body 228 . Regarding worship, St. Theodore teaches that in relation to There is only one worship of God - service (λατρευτικὴ προσκύνησις). In relation to everything else, worship is different and different. The worship of subordinates to kings and rulers, slaves to masters, children to fathers exists, but is different from the worship of God. The listed people receive worship of varying importance, which depends on their honor; such worship is performed either by fear, or by love, or by law. This understanding of the difference in the worship of prototypes leads to a corresponding difference in the worship of images that depict either God, the Mother of God, or saints 229. Worship is inseparable from veneration. Recognizing the veneration of icons, it is necessary to recognize their worship. This can be proven by numerous passages in Scripture, for example, “for all glory, honor, and worship is due to You.”230 Due to the identity (in a certain sense) of the image and the prototype, veneration and worship moves from the prototype to the image and vice versa 231. Likewise, everything that is holy is also worshiped. Saint Nikephoros highlights new facets in the argumentation of this group. A refutation of the accusations of idolatry is the fact that idolaters have many different forms, types and figures of idols, different from each other, while the Orthodox have one icon of the Savior with the same image, although differing in different places in minor features, but always allowing one to recognize the same prototype of the Lord Jesus Christ 232 . The relationship between the prototype and the icon is the same as the relationship between cause and effect, therefore the image and the prototype are in relation to each other, that is, they have mutual influence. For example, a son is called a son relative to his father and vice versa. The image of the prototype gives knowledge about the latter; in the image “one can contemplate the hypostasis of what is inscribed” 233. Similarity is “a mediating relationship that connects... the one who is similar with the one who is similar - connects them in appearance” with a different being 234. Also, similarity presupposes the identity of the name. The correlation connects the prototype and the image, therefore, when the first is glorified, the second is also glorified, and vice versa. In connection with the above relationships (that is, the lack of natural identity between the image and the prototype), it is impossible to agree with the accusations of the iconoclasts that the natures of Christ are separated by the icon 235 . G.A. Ostrogorsky emphasizes that it was St. Nicephorus grasped the epistemological root of the contradictions between the Orthodox and the iconoclasts, which was expressed in the fact that the latter, having Eastern magical ideas about the metaphysical world, argued about the consubstantiality of the image and the prototype 236. Veneration of the image of the Cross of the Lord, as well as a normal attitude towards sacred vessels, images on them and on sacred clothes, as well as recognition and veneration of the text of the Gospel as sacred, which conveys the word of God with the help of images, all this requires iconoclasts to recognize, venerate and icons, as in their essence things of the same order 237. In another work of St. Nicephorus clarifies that the fragments of the Gospels that speak of “the humiliation and human side of the House of our Savior” should be perceived as icons verbally depicting Christ in the flesh 238 . The same argument is used by St. Methodius: “The Gospel expounds verbally, the icon shows it objectively” 239. Iconoclasts claim that by banning icons, they help those who incorrectly venerate icons, who consider them to be gods. As St. rightly notes. Nikifor, the right solution would be to teach such people the correct veneration of shrines, and not to dishonor them through a ban 240. St. Methodius uses a similar argument 241. An important addition belonging exclusively to the words of St. Nikifor, is to reveal the content of the terms “described” and “depictable”, as well as to explain the differences between them. As the saint explains, the term “description” or, as this word is also translated, “limitation” (περιγραφή) differs in meaning from the term “image” (γραφή). The first means the establishment of limits to an object by space, time, beginning or comprehension: the body is limited (or described) by space; an event or object that has a beginning or an end in time is limited (or described) by it; what is comprehended by thought or knowledge is described (or limited) by knowledge. Therefore, “description-limitation is the containment and limit of what is contained and limited, or the end of what began and moves, or the comprehension of the spiritual and knowable” 242. Everything that does not fit these category, is unlimited or indescribable. Image means providing a bodily appearance of a person and consists of “having a resemblance to the prototype; it exists and is called the image of the prototype, it is separated from it and exists on its own”; whereas a description can be neither similarity nor dissimilarity, since it does not communicate the form of what it describes 243 . Description and image are not necessarily interrelated with each other, since there are things or phenomena that are described but not depicted. For example, the annual circle, the Old Testament law or virtue are limited (or describable) by time or comprehension, but are indescribable, since they do not have an appearance or form, and therefore are inaccessible to perception by sight 244 . This group of arguments is, on the one hand, an explanation of the conceptual theological apparatus, and on the other, a partial response to the iconoclastic argument about the idolatry of the council of 754. As a result, what is common to Orthodox authors of both waves of iconoclasm is the thesis about the transfer of glory and worship from the image to the prototype, as well as the quoting of the same fragment of St. Basil the Great (about the king and the image of the king), which, however, in itself cannot be evidence of direct borrowing. All the considered authors reveal the concept of image and talk about the similarity with the prototype, but they do this with different emphases. St. John speaks more about the purpose of the image as remembrance or demonstration of what is hidden. The common place is the doctrine of ministerial worship, which is inherent only to God, and of the various types of worship of the creature, as well as the inseparability of worship from veneration. It should be noted that Rev. Theodore and St. Nikifor practically do not develop the idea of ​​venerating the icon as an object in connection with the image of the saint inscribed on it and in connection with the communion of the icon of the grace of God, while St. John does this in more detail. The fathers of the 9th century were much less concerned with the categorization of images and types of worship; this aspect is presented in full in St. John. In revealing the meaning of the term image, image, among the holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm, the focus is shifted to such properties as depictability and describability, as well as proof of the natural non-identity of the image and the prototype, which is most likely due to the emphasis of the iconoclastic council of 754 St. Theodore the Studite, proving the describability of Christ, begins with physical categories such as body, density, three dimensions, etc. Much more attention is paid to them comparing the image and the seal or imprint. St. Theodore also details the mechanism of transferring worship from the icon to the prototype, explaining that when worshiping an image, the object of worship is the prototype, which is thought together with the image, and the worshiper does this in relation to the “type of prototype.” By introducing a new concept, the Studio abbot reveals the reason for the unity of the image and prototype, the unity of worship, - this is the “unity of hypostatic similarity,” that is, the unity of similarity found both in the hypostasis and in the image. That is why in the image one recognizes the hypostasis of what is depicted, that is, the prototype. Noteworthy and original is the explanation of St. Theodora about cases of poorly created images. Developing the doctrine of the image, of the presence of some common similarity both in the image of Christ and in Christ himself, the fathers of the 9th century spoke more expressively about the unity of the name of the image and the prototype. Saint Nicephorus in the theology of the image goes further and compares the prototype and the image on the one hand and the cause and effect on the other, establishing a correlative connection between the image and the prototype. This comparison is the saint’s own argument. The teachings of the Primate of Constantinople contain direct explanations of the difference between idols and icons. Noteworthy is his direct and simple answer to the argument of the iconoclasts about the abuse of icons by the Orthodox, in which the saint proposes not to try to eliminate another (wrong attitude towards icons) with the help of one wickedness (the banning of icons). Another independent argument of the theology of St. Nikephoros is the theme of depictability and describability. The saint revealed in great detail the correct understanding of these concepts and their correct use. St. John speaks of the closeness of such phenomena as the image conveyed by word and the image conveyed by image; St. Nikephoros and St. Theodore also use this argument, but talk about it in more detail, revealing the mechanism and deepening the understanding of this comparison. 3.2.2. Second group. Arguments from Scripture and Tradition The second group should include, first of all, numerous passages in the works of the two theologians under consideration, where, to prove their own theses, they cite the words of Holy Scripture. For example, Rev. Theodore, in his letter to the Galatians, refers to the words of the apostle, who says to the addressees: who has deceived...you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was depicted as being crucified among you? (Gal.3:1) 245. St. Nicephorus in his own writings often resorts to quoting Holy Scripture in order to expose the wicked teachings of his opponents. For example, St. Nicephorus gives arguments testifying to the imageability of Christ: His genealogy (Matthew 1:1); a fragment of the Gospel of John about the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14) 246; a quotation from the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Philippians, proving the presence of an external, visible image in Christ, where the apostle says that Christ became like all people and in appearance became like a man (Phil. 2:7), etc., however, all this is done in those parts of the saint’s work that expose the iconoclasts 247. St. Theodore claims that there is no evidence in Scripture that God commanded that His earthly path be recorded in books and that the Gospels be created, but the apostles wrote them, and thereby created an image of Christ, recorded in writing and preserved to this day. The Gospels written by God are the same image as the images of the bodily appearance of Christ: what is depicted through paper and ink in the Gospels is the same as what is depicted through paints or other materials on icons. When Scripture speaks of the worship or veneration of Christ, then this command itself, in its content, speaks of the worship of the prototype through the image expressed in this passage. In this regard, wherever the Holy Scripture speaks of the worship of Christ, it actually speaks of the worship of the prototype through a verbal image, that is, of the worship of Christ through the “verbal icon” of Christ. This, in turn, confirms and justifies the correctness of the creation and worship of icons 248. In one place in the book of Proverbs it is said that the Lord creates Wisdom, in another - that He gives birth to It (Prov. 8:22, 25). This passage is interpreted by St. Theodore as proof of two natures in Christ, and everything created is describable 249. The Monk Theodore points out the dual attitude in the Holy Scriptures to the image and idol: a person in the Holy Scriptures is called in the image of God, and the Lord Himself, pointing to the coin, asked those asking, “Whose image is this?” (Matthew 22:30), while the same Scripture says that the gods of the pagans will perish (Jer.10:11). In this regard, the icon and idols cannot be understood in the same way only because of the connection of each with the word “view” (εἶδος) 250. From the beginning, the Church has had a custom of venerating sacred books, sacred utensils and icons. Such veneration is enshrined in the Tradition of the Church. Even if the logical justification for the veneration of icons and sacred objects turns out to be difficult, it is more correct to adhere to the Tradition and customs of the Church than to doubt them under the pressure of evidence from logic, since the simplicity of faith is stronger than logical evidence 251. St. Methodius adds that if the six Ecumenical Councils did not condemn the veneration and worship of icons (while idolatry, which, according to iconoclasts, is the veneration of icons, is the gravest sin), then the veneration of icons, present in Her tradition from the beginning of the New Testament Church, is a pious and good practice 252. St. Theodore, as proof of a number of his own theses, repeatedly refers to Saints Basil the Great, Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom as a general and indisputable authority both for himself and for his iconoclast opponent 253. Saint Methodius often mentions sayings in defense of the veneration of icons by St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, once St. Gregory of Nyssa 254. A separate argument from Rev. Theodore, there are cases from Tradition that illustrate and confirm what he said. For example, the testimony of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, telling about the martyr Cyrus, who prayed in the church to the icon of Christ and was honored with a vision in which Christ bent over him and said some words to him 255. Or the testimony of St. Athanasius the Great from the now recognized as inauthentic work “The Miracle of the Image in Virita” 256 about how the Jews mocked the image of Christ following the example of His torturers and crucifiers, and after the image was pierced in the rib area, blood and water flowed out of the icon in abundance and then those who ate them were healed 257 . St. Theodore refers to canon 82 of the V-VI Ecumenical Council, which prescribes the prohibition of depicting Christ in the symbolic image of an “ancient lamb,” but depicting Him “in human form” 258 . St. Nikephoros also mentions this canonical establishment 259. In addition, the Primate of Constantinople refers to the Third Ecumenical Council, which “declared Christ ... to be described according to humanity” 260. St. also refers to the same 82nd Rule VI of the Supreme Court. Methodius 261. Composition by St. Epiphany of Cyprus, in which the saint allegedly opposes icons, according to St. Theodora is counterfeit and does not belong to St. Epiphany. In addition, if the testimony of one, even a very worthy and respected one, contradicts the Tradition of the Church and the right faith, then, despite the authority, the false teaching should be rejected 262. Priest Nicholas Grossu believes the work of St. Epiphany forged 263. Saint Nikephoros teaches that from the initial times of the existence of the New Testament Church and from the “apostolic and paternal” Tradition, continuous veneration of icons is known 264. To confirm his own words, an example is given of images in churches on soles, on gates and doors that are there specifically for worship 265. An essay condemning the icons of St. Epiphany is recognized as St. Nicephorus, not written by the Cypriot bishop, as evidenced by two bishops, natives of the island of Cyprus, testifying to the forgery of the work. A separate and special argument is the proof of Orthodoxy and church recognition of the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council, which proclaimed a pan-church teaching in defense of icon veneration. In particular, lines are given where anathema is proclaimed to those who extend to icons the Old Testament prohibitions against the creation of images of idols, as well as to those who call icons idols 266. A conciliar decision regarding a dogmatic issue stops disputes and discussions regarding the accepted teaching, not allowing doubts about it 267. Drawn images are superior to those conveyed through text, since they are understood faster, are retained in memory longer, and bring equal benefit to both learned and simple people. In addition, the contemplation of images raises the mind to mountain objects through the language of symbols. This group of arguments is a refutation of the iconoclastic argument from Tradition, expressed at the council of 754. As a result, we can say that all authors resort to references to Holy Scripture to support their own arguments. St. John of Damascus does this more freely and his evidence from Scripture can be very mediated by a whole sequence of logical or allegorical explanations connecting the text of Scripture and his own conclusions. St. Theodore quotes Scripture more carefully and restrainedly, rather selecting the most striking and direct evidence in Scripture to prove his specific theses. St. Nicephorus often resorts to arguments from Scripture to denounce iconoclasts, but to confirm his own arguments in defense of icon veneration, St. Petersburg does this much less often. John. Both reverend fathers refer to the Holy Scriptures as the source of written images of Christ, identical in meaning to iconographic images, i.e. visual. At the same time, Rev. Theodore goes deeper into the question and shows that any call from Holy Scripture to worship or venerate God is a call to venerate the prototype through a verbal image or verbal icon (since the language of Scripture is the language of images conveyed by text), which in itself justifies the veneration and painting of icons by Scripture; also emphasizes the advantage of a visual image over a textual one. A common place is also the attitude towards criticism of the icons of St. Epiphany: the main version is the false attribution of the text to the saint. Like St. John, etc. Theodore says that the opinion of one saint cannot refute the opinion of many Holy Fathers, considering the latter to be Church Tradition. Whereas Saint Nikephoros does not speak about the situation when the opinion of St. Epiphany contradicts the rest of the holy fathers, but provides more convincing evidence to consider the work fraudulent. Another coincidence in the argumentation of St. John and St. Nicephorus argues that, despite the absence of relevant provisions in the Holy Scriptures, the Church has a number of common and obligatory traditions: veneration of the Cross, fasting, etc., and icon veneration also falls into this category. St. John cites numerous testimonies of the holy fathers in support of the icons, collected in one place, referring primarily to the Areopagite Corpus. St. Theodore cites patristic quotations along with his own reasoning and evidence, much less often referring to the Areopagitica. The argument of Rev. is noteworthy. Theodore the Studite, that simplicity of faith and undoubted trust in the teachings of the Church are more important than proof from logic, the same argument can be found in St. Nikifor. The Monk Theodore also offers other authorial arguments from Scripture: proof of two natures in Christ as proof of imageability, or proof of the difference between an idol and an icon. The Studian abbot also resorts to another type of evidence from Tradition, referring to specific cases that happened to saints, in which miraculous events occurred through icons, confirming the correctness of turning to them for help. A separate argument, absent from the Rev. John (probably due to the fact that the texts of the decisions did not have time to reach the Reverend Father), is a reference to the 82nd rule of the Trullo Council. For obvious reasons, Rev. John there is no reference to the VII Ecumenical Council, present as an argument from Tradition among the fathers of the first half of the 9th century. Simple, convincing and original is the argument of St. Methodius that icon veneration was not condemned by all six Ecumenical Councils. 3.2.3. Third group. Christological arguments In this group Rev. Theodore and St. Nicephorus pays attention primarily to the depiction of Christ. St. Theodore explains that the Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped in swaddling clothes, visible, tangible, crucified, suffered and died, remaining incomprehensible, invisible, intangible, impassive, immortal. “Christ remains indescribable even at the time when He is depicted [on icons]. The same are His properties: some are the properties of His indescribable nature, in which God is known; others - by the properties of His describable nature, in which man is manifested" 268. These properties were not mixed through fusion, but Christ “remains one and the same in hypostasis, having within established boundaries the unmerged beginning of both His natures” 269 . Christ assumed human nature and according to it we see, describe, etc., but regarding the Divine nature He is indescribable. This is possible because in one Person of the Word the Divine and human natures were united, that is, Christ consists of two natures, and therefore is both indescribable and describable 270. In one Hypostasis one should distinguish between deity and humanity according to their natural properties. The description of the bodily appearance of Christ should be called the icon of Christ, or Christ by the same name 271. In another place this thought sounds like this: “The Son and Word of the Father, after becoming flesh, we can describe according to the flesh, but by the nature of the Divinity remains indescribable” 272. The describability of Christ necessarily entails the consequence that He is the prototype of His images (or images) written on icons 273. Refuting the thesis of the iconoclasts that indescribability destroys describability in Christ, St. Theodore shows that, following the logic of his opponents, intangibility destroys the opposite property, and Christ will also be unable to suffer and will only be impassive. However, according to Scripture, Christ endured suffering, therefore He was describable 274. Natural properties are unchangeable, the humanity of Christ has the property of being describable. If it is argued that Christ cannot be depicted according to humanity, then the property of describability has changed to the opposite. If describability simply disappeared, then the humanity of Christ also disappeared (since the property is inseparable from nature). If the property of describability passed into the Divinity, then a change occurred in God, which also cannot be conceived 275. Speaking about the perceived nature, St. Theodore emphasizes that “Christ perceived ... the general nature, ... which is truly contemplated in the individual [individual] (ἐν ἀτόμῳ)” 276, and not the nature of “man in general,” which “if ... is not contemplated in the individual, then does not exist” 277. Christ as God “is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit by filial properties,” and as a person “is distinguished from all people by personal [hypostasis] properties (τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς ἰδιώμασιν) and therefore we describe” 278. Priest Nicholas Grossu adds that the statement about the perception of a common nature would mean the heresy of the Manichaean-Docetians 279. Clarifying his own thought about the Hypostasis of Christ, St. Theodore expresses it as follows: “The Hypostasis of the Word was the common Hypostasis of both natures, in which human nature received its hypostatic existence with properties (ἰδιωμάτων) separating it from other [creatures] of the same kind... we can call the same Hypostasis of the Word indescribable in the nature of the Divinity and describable in relation to the essence corresponding to us” 280. Despite the fact that human nature has its existence not in an individual person, but “in it [that is, in the Hypostasis of the Word] ... it is contemplated and described” 281. Priest Nikolai Grossu adds that this argument is a refutation of the iconoclastic accusations of Nestorianism, which argued that the thesis about the depictability of the Hypostasis of Christ means the duality of the hypostases in Christ. Recognizing the Hypostasis of Christ as indescribable by humanity would mean that in Christ there is one nature, composed of two natures, which directly leads to the heresy of Apollinaris (who argued that in Christ there is not only one Hypostasis, but also one nature, complex and composite). Otherwise, the non-representability of the Hypostasis of Christ may mean an untrue incarnation, which leads to the heresy of docetism 282. St. Theodore teaches that “in every depiction, it is not the nature [of an object] that is depicted, but [its] hypostasis (ὑπόστασις)… For example, Peter is depicted… only to the extent that he, together with the general definition, differs from other people, having some particular characteristics (ἰδιώματά τινα), such as: an aquiline or blunt nose, or curly hair...” 283. Therefore, Christ is depicted not in relation to the fact that He is just a man, “but insofar as He, differing in personal properties (τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς ἰδιώμασιν) from all those like Him, was crucified and in this form [is depicted]. So, we describe Christ according to Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις), ... and not from the side of those natures of which He consists” 284. In the last quote from Rev. Theodore seeks to emphasize that icon painters do not depict human nature, separate from the deity, but the Hypostasis. This argument is passed to prp in a similar way. Theodora and G.A. Ostrogorsky 285. As L.A. Uspensky states, an icon can only be a “personal, hypostatic image,” since, quoting St. John of Damascus, nature does not exist independently, but is contemplated in faces. The icon is involved in the prototype, since it depicts his hypostasis and bears his name 286. As the priest notes. Nikolai Grossu, the icon of Christ depicts His personal hypostatic features, since Christ is described by hypostasis, and what is depicted is not nature or natural properties (such as mortality, rationality, etc.), but a certain nose, eye color, etc. 287 Prot. Nikolai Ozolin, speaking about the main issue of iconoclastic disputes, expresses this idea in a similar way: “I. shows the one Person of Christ, the incarnate Word, according to His deified flesh" 288 . For Christians, creating an image of the bodily form of Christ does not mean inventing gods, like the pagans, but confessing His appearance in human flesh 289. Saint Nikephoros also places at the center of his anti-iconoclastic argument Christology and the question of the imageability of Christ: “The Son, being even after the Incarnation... consubstantial with us in humanity, holds and preserves in each of the natures united in one and the same Hypostasis... the immutable, unchangeable and unmixable natural differences of qualities inherent in them... The Word... unites with the whole man, uniting... into a single complex Hypostasis" 290. According to humanity, Christ is “passionate..., mortal, we depict and describe” 291. The hypostasis of Christ is “something dual and complex, representing a combination of two natures” 292, according to one of which Christ is described, passionate, mortal, etc., since “each of the natures must learn what is proper and peculiar to him” 293. Or, in other words, Christ’s “Hypostasis consists of two opposites” 294. Responding to the well-known iconoclastic reproach for the heresy of Nestorianism, associated with the fact that icon venerators, depicting the humanity of Christ, thereby separate this humanity from the Divinity, St. Nikephoros writes that it is impossible to divide the natures in Christ with the help of fine art, but the icon painter, on the contrary, “in thought and relatively unites... the natures... and captures the unity” 295. Christ “remaining one with two opposite natures... equally and equally honestly participated in each of the two natures and properties of which he consists. As a result of communication and kinship with each of both natures, He remains one with the two, uniting them in His Hypostasis” 296. Next St. Nikephoros details: “when [the holy fathers] consider the natures in Christ by themselves... they attribute characteristics and natural properties to each [nature] in its own sense - and what they say about one nature is not attributed to another... But when they take the Hypostasis, consisting of these natures, they call Her Christ according to both natures; They consider the properties of united natures to be properties of the Hypostasis, since Christ is both God and at the same time man... created and uncreated, passionate and impassive” 297. As pointed out by Rev. John Meyendorff, St. Nicephorus bases his own argument on the hypostatic unity of the two natures in Christ. The icon depicts the Face, the Hypostasis of the incarnate God 298. The Monk Theodore provides another proof of the describability of Christ, but after the resurrection. During his appearance to the disciples, the Savior offered to touch Him, to feel His flesh, and offered to look at His hands and feet (Luke 24:39) 299. Developing the argument about the correct attitude to the concepts of “descriptability” and “depicability”, St. Nikephoros concludes that “Christ, as a man, is described [or] limited by space... time; circulating among people bodily, the Incomprehensible became comprehensible” 300. God the Word, having inhabited the Mother of God, took upon Her our flesh; since the Mother of God is of the same essence to all people, then Christ, being a perfect man, became limited and describable according to the flesh. Due to describability, it can be argued that all those events that are narrated in the New Testament actually happened to Christ. According to the reasoning of St. Nicephorus, it would be incorrect to say that Christians describe Christ, that is, they limit Him and place any limits on Him through their actions or thoughts; it would be true to say that they depict Him, since His human nature is characterized by depictability. Also, “icons represent Him to everyone not because He is described, but because we depict Him” 301. In addition, according to St. Nicephorus, the participation of the image of the Savior in its Prototype leads to the fact that the former borrows from the Last “some grace and strength” 302. This group is a response to the iconoclastic arguments about the indescribability of the Divinity and the inimaginability of the Hypostasis, expressed at the council of 754. Drawing a conclusion, we can say that what is common to the theologians under consideration is the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was united with the Divinity in a single complex Hypostasis. St. John here emphasizes that the flesh became the flesh of God the Word. The thesis about the depictability of Christ according to humanity also turns out to be common, however, among theologians of the first half of the 9th century, depictability and describability are, as it were, the center of Christology, while St. John writes about this only a few times. This difference can be explained by a shift in emphasis in the argumentation of the iconoclasts themselves, namely as a result of the theology of the council of 754, one of the main theses of which was the inimaginability of the Hypostasis of Christ. St. John emphasizes that due to the fact that the flesh of Christ is the flesh of God, the description of Christ will be an image of God, and not just an image of the body. Both reverend fathers affirm the imaginability of the Hypostasis of the Word after the Incarnation in terms of His humanity and the inimaginability in terms of Divinity. Responding to the accusation of a hypothetical iconoclast, St. Theodore teaches that since real nature is perceived, it is nature seen in the individual, described and having a specific appearance, in contrast to the so-called. nature, seen in the form of one mind and not existing in reality. Despite the fact that these theses were not voiced by Rev. John in his anti-iconoclastic works, this terminology and its content, that is, the categorization of nature into “nature seen in the form” and “nature seen in the individual,” as well as the characteristics of these two from the point of view of real being, in our opinion, can stem from Ch. 11 books 3 of his works “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” 303. Also the statement of St. Theodore about the difference between the Hypostasis of Christ from the Father and the Son by the filial property, and from people by the hypostatic properties of humanity, is an almost verbatim repetition of what was said by St. John in ch. 7 books 3 of the “Precise Statement”, which allows us to conclude that there was an indirect quotation in this case. A common argument is the assertion that the Hypostasis of Christ is a single Hypostasis of two natures. The following emphases of Christology are not typical for St. John and are either a development of his conclusions, or an independent theological argumentation of St. Theodore or St. Nikifor. St. Theodore and St. Nikifor, focusing on depictability as a property of human nature, emphasize the unmixed nature of the properties of two natures, that is, the preservation of describability and indescribability simultaneously in a single Hypostasis. The theme of natural properties in Christ is found in the theology of the two saints almost as often as the theme of imageability. Which may also be connected with the iconoclastic argument about the indescribable Divinity of the cathedral of 754. In addition, as St. Theodore, a consequence of the imageability of Christ is that Christ is the prototype of his images. Also, the abbot of Studium and the primate of Constantinople come to the conclusion that the hypostasis is always depicted, and not the nature of the object. In this regard, Christ is portrayed as having personal properties that distinguish him from other people. The conclusion of St. Nicephorus that the holy fathers consider the properties of united natures to be properties of the Hypostasis, and that is why they speak of Christ as God and at the same time man, etc. Saint Nikephoros finds evidence of figurativeness in the Chalcedonian definition of faith, which the saint did not do. John in his iconographic argumentation. The unfused and unchangeable union of two natures, as the saint teaches, testifies that the two natures were not united into one and did not undergo a confusion of their properties, therefore Christ remained depictable according to human nature. And the inseparability and inseparability of the two natures in Christ also confirms the depictability of Christ, since the natures are not really separated and only human nature, in reality separated from the Hypostasis, cannot be depicted on the icon. Also noteworthy is the saint’s reasoning about the correct use of the terms “depicted” and “described” in relation to Christ, and their meaning. Special for St. Nikephoros and etc. Theodore is an argument related to the derivation of heretical consequences from the theses of the iconoclasts, and above all from the statement about the inimaginability of the Hypostasis of Christ. This will be either a confusion of natural properties or a real division of natures in Christ. Another new argument, which apparently arose in response to the peculiar iconoclastic “creativity” of opponents, is related to the fact that after the Resurrection Christ remained as describable as before the Resurrection. The author's argument of St. Nicephorus is a discussion about the correct use of the terms “depicted” and “described” in relation to Christ. 3.2.4. Fourth group. Other dogmatic arguments In this group Rev. Theodore continues to pay attention to the category of describability. The Divinity alone is indescribable, since it is not comprehensible either by feeling or thought; His nature cannot be known by the mind, therefore it is impossible to describe Him, i.e. limit. Everything else, except the Divine, is comprehensible by reason, through which it is limited and, therefore, is describable 304. According to the thought of St. Theodora, the Divinity is present in the image of the Cross and in other divine objects, but not by the community of nature, but “by their relative participation in Him, since they participate in grace and honor” 305. In every sacred object, God is worshiped in spirit and truth, since the material side of the object is eliminated due to the elevation of the mind to God 306. As I. Yazykova explains, icon venerators strive to show the sanctification of matter through the image, while simultaneously emphasizing that the source of grace is not matter itself 307 . The Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, given in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, cannot be images of Christ, as the iconoclasts taught, since this would mean blasphemy and heresy. The Holy Mysteries are not images of Christ, but the very Body and Blood of Christ. In remembrance of Christ, believers do many other things, especially on great holidays, therefore the commandment of Christ given at the Last Supper also applies to performing other actions in His remembrance 308. Venerable Theodore and St. Nikephoros 309 use an argument related to the Mother of God: as is the one who gave birth, such is the one born from her. The Mother of God is describable, therefore Christ, as Her Son, is consubstantial with Her (in terms of humanity) and therefore we can describe 310. Christ received from the One who gave birth to Him all the properties of Her nature, including describability 311. The theology of the fourth group partially refutes the iconoclastic argument about the unimaginability of the Hypostasis of Christ, as well as the Eucharistic argument of the Council of 754. As a result, we can conclude that the common argument of this group for the holy fathers under consideration is the presence of God by grace both in the images of the Cross and other objects related to the Divine Economy, and in these objects themselves. Such presence of St. Theodore called them “relative communion” with the Divine. St. John teaches about the worship of material objects because of their participation in Divine grace. St. Theodore does not voice such statements, but teaches about the presence of deity in the image of the Cross of the Lord and other divine objects by relative communion; in such objects we worship God in spirit. The differences can be found throughout the rest of the argument. St. John pays attention to the issues of the correct attitude towards matter as a creation of God; the need for a person to achieve spiritually significant goals or knowledge through material objects; the impossibility of rejecting the icon as an image without rejecting the entire hierarchy of images, which includes Christ as the natural image of the Father. The Monk Theodore pays attention to natural and artificial images, but does not come to the conclusions that the saint makes. John. St. Theodore and St. Nikifor use an argument that the saint does not have. John, again connected with the proof of the describability of Christ: being in humanity the Son of the Mother of God, Christ is the bearer of the nature of the Mother who gave birth to Him, whose nature has the property of describability. Consequently, Christ, as one in essence with Her, must also be describable. It is noteworthy that nowhere in the theology of St. Theodora and St. Nikephoros does not mention the possibility of reverent worship of the objects themselves due to their involvement in the work of the Savior. The later fathers do not say anything in defense of matter as the creation of God. In connection with the Eucharistic argument of the council of 754, St. Theodore argues that the Body and Blood of the Lord cannot be images of Christ, since they are in essence the true Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, the veneration of the Holy Mysteries by images of Christ is blasphemy. In general, it seems that a group of other dogmatic arguments is presented in St. John is more extensive. 3.2.5. Fifth group. Prohibition on creating images in the decalogue This aspect was also reflected in the argumentation of the Studi abbot. The Old Testament prohibition on the creation of any likeness was given by God to the Jews before the Incarnation and the subsequent stay of believers under grace. Then God protected the Jews by law from idolatry and polytheism through such prohibitions. Moreover, since God elsewhere commanded Moses to create images of the Cherubim, and also the mysterious image of Christ under the guise of a brass serpent, it is all the more pleasing to God to create images of His bodily form since He became man. If then “the sight (εἰκών) [image] of an animal healed those who were bitten” 312, then now “the sight of the sacred image of Christ can sanctify” 313 those looking at it. Therefore, the prohibition on images in the Old Testament applies only to the image of God in the likeness of any creation: the sun, moon or anything else, which is where images of idols are expressed. The permission of images in the Old Testament referred to cases when, through appropriate images, the Jews were led to contemplation and service of the One God 314. The words of Scripture directed against the pagans regarding images of idols cannot be attributed to the image of Christ. This group's reasoning refutes the idolatry arguments of the 754 council. The arguments of the fifth group are generally presented in the same way with minor additions from each side. St. John only adds that Christians who are in a grace-filled relationship with God are freed from the tendency to paganism. 3.2.6.–3.2.7. Sixth and seventh groups. Arguments related to the Blessed Virgin Mary, saints and the practical benefits of icons for spiritual life Saint Nikephoros almost completely repeats the argument of St. John of Damascus that good icons should be venerated, and bad ones should be turned away and rejected, especially those that serve the veneration of idols by pagans 315. St. speaks about the benefits of icons for spiritual life. Methodius: “I venerate, ... worship and kiss ... icons, not as gods, but as an abbreviated description, explanation and reminder of them [i.e. martyrs] suffering. For for suffering... for the sake of Christ... they are blessed, honored and worshiped" 316. Icons were written to remind and correct our lives, as well as for pagans coming to faith. Icons are abbreviated Scripture 317. The arguments of this group partially refute the iconoclastic argument about worship in the spirit put forward at the council of 754. Otherwise, the argumentation of these thematic groups is not reflected in the considered works of the Greek holy fathers of the first half of the 9th century, or was touched upon to an insignificant extent. Venerable Theodore and St. Nicephorus speaks of the Mother of God as having given birth to the Lord and being consubstantial with Him, deducing from here the imageability of Christ as a property of His humanity (which was indicated in the fourth group concerning dogmatic arguments). However, theologians do not touch upon the issue of icons of saints, the Mother of God and their veneration. 3.2.8. Eighth group. arguments related to the canonical structure of the church Arguments from the eighth group that rulers and kings do not have the power to interfere in the affairs of government and doctrine of the Church are repeatedly used by St. Theodore (in his letters and in personal meetings, as discussed in the previous chapter), and St. Nikifor 318. St. John mentions this once. 3.2.9. Ninth group. Arguments that could not be classified into the existing classification compiled according to the argumentation of St. John and those not found in him 1. As the Venerable teaches. Theodore, the Incarnation does not diminish or dishonor, but elevates the glory of God, and the material describability of the flesh of Christ serves to the glory and honor of the indescribable God. The same can be said about Christ’s suffering in the flesh, His acceptance of food, etc. 319. 2. Comparing the icon and the idol, the abbot of Studium explains that the icon of Christ (due to the correct understanding of the union of two natures) is a clear proof of the Economy, and the idol carries in its essence delusion and polytheism 320. Also, an icon is possible only in relation to a real existing one, and an idol depicts something that does not exist in reality 321. 3. Saint Nikephoros offers an argument related to introducing a schism into the body of the Church: the iconoclasts, professing a teaching condemned by the Ecumenical Council, thereby introducing a schism into the Body of the Church. This in itself is an argument against their activities and their confession, since the introduction of separation was condemned by many holy fathers, including St. John Chrysostom 322. As L.V. explains the logic of this argument. Lukhovitsky, the crime of the iconoclasts of the first half of the 9th century is more significant, because they profess their own heresy contrary to the decision of the VII Ecumenical Council 323. 4. Another unique argument of St. Nikephoros is to debunk the iconoclasts’ belief in the success of iconoclast rulers in matters of public administration. The Primate of Constantinople gives examples of pious rulers who were not iconoclasts, but reached greater heights both in personal piety (Emperor Theodosius 324) and in matters of government and military campaigns (Emperor Justinian 325). In addition, it should be noted that St. Nicephorus, in his writings in defense of icon veneration, uses the method of criticizing the teachings of opponents to a much greater extent than the saint does. John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite. Criticism and refutation of the position of the iconoclasts is taken by St. Nikephoros more than two-thirds of the relevant works. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople directly reproaches his opponent for the lack of logic, showing the internal contradictions of the thesis about the consubstantiality of the image and the prototype and emphasizing his lack of understanding of such logical categories as cause and effect, general and different, relation, quality, etc. 326 Basically, St. Nikifor shows the inconsistency of his opponents' arguments by exposing the contradictions that follow from the theses they assert. One of the main arguments of the iconoclasts is the thesis that Christ is unimaginable due to His divine nature. The saint shows from various sides how this statement leads to contradictions with Orthodox dogmas. Heretical opinion leads to confusion of natures or natural properties; or to the addition of a fourth person to the Trinity; or to the destruction of the theology of the Incarnation, since it leads to the conclusion of the perception of unimaginable flesh; or to the statement about the indescribability of the flesh of the Mother of God as consubstantial with what was born of Her 327; or to the non-consubstantiality of Christ with all people who are by nature imaginable, and, consequently, to the conclusion about the impossibility of the Redemption and salvation of the human race by Christ, Who turns out to be not of the same essence with people 328. In their theology, the saints do not mention St. John, however, this does not mean at all that the texts of St. John were unknown to them or not used. Lack of direct links to prp. John could have been caused by a number of reasons: firstly, polemical writings aimed at persuading opponents (or convincing those who have not decided on their position) must be based on some axiomatics common to opponents, which cannot be attributed to the VII Ecumenical Council, which condemned iconoclasm and proclaimed the eternal memory of St. John of Damascus, and the iconoclastic councils, which proclaimed anathema to the venerable father. For iconoclasts St. John seemed to be a heretic, a reference to whose authority could not mean anything significant for them, but rather, on the contrary, could obviously discredit the essentially correct argumentation; secondly, from the cited patristic evidence in favor of icon veneration, we can conclude that icon theologians sought to show the continuity and validity of the veneration of icons in Tradition by references to fairly early theologians noted by generally recognized councils (St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, etc.), which is understandable from the point of view of evidence of this kind. A comparison of the argumentation of the first thematic group indicates a partial coincidence of the argumentation of theologians of the first and second waves of iconoclasm, as well as the presence of a significant number of their own arguments. Coinciding argumentation almost always means a more detailed disclosure or understanding of the principle. Theodore and St. Nikifor. St. John tends to systematize and theorize the issues under consideration, while later iconologians tend to consider only those topics that make it possible to refute the theses of opponents that arose at the council of 754 and partly in the writings of Constantine V. Consideration of the argumentation of the holy fathers of the second group of arguments speaks, first of all, about the common attitude of all holy authors to the unconditional authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as sources that provide answers to doctrinal questions. The nature of the appeal and evidence from the Holy Scriptures is different for each of the icon-venerating holy fathers. There is a general argument about the fundamental similarity of the visual and written image, with the usual detail and deeper consideration of the meaning of this argument in St. Theodora. The saints of the two waves of iconoclasm have several common and somewhat original arguments. A feature of the argument of St. Nikephoros, St. Theodora and St. Methodius is a reference to the 82nd rule of the Trullo Council and occasional appeals to the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council. In the third group of arguments, in our opinion, in the argument of St. Theodore, possible indirect quotation of St. John, when the nature perceived by Christ is characterized (i.e., “the nature seen in the individual”). Such a categorization of the natures of St. John gives an exact exposition of the Orthodox faith. A similar conclusion can be drawn about another argument, which concerns the differences between Christ and God the Father and other people. The rest of Christological theology also allows us to speak of a partial coincidence of argumentation, with a simultaneous shift in its focus and deepening on certain issues by the holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm. Thus, the imageability and describability of Christ, as well as the non-confusion of natural properties in Christ, almost always find themselves at the center of the latter’s theology. At the same time, this thematic group is the most voluminous for prp. Theodora and St. Nikephoros, and the richest in terms of the uniqueness and originality of their argumentation, which can be explained by the Christocentric theology of iconoclastic disputes. A group of dogmatic non-Christological arguments reveals a common argument regarding the gracious presence of God in sacred objects and their images, with the introduction of new terminology for such involvement on the part of St. Theodora. Otherwise, the argumentation of the holy fathers of the two periods of iconoclastic disputes is different and independent, despite the fact that St. John pays more attention to this group in his anti-iconoclastic works. The argumentation of the fifth group, related to the explanation of the ban on the creation of images in the Decalogue, can be characterized as relatively uniform in content, despite the fact that the topic was given relatively little attention by the authors of the two stages of iconoclasm. Venerable Theodore and St. Nikifor, unlike St. John, touch rather sparingly on arguments related to the Mother of God, saints and the practical use of icons for spiritual life. At the same time, later saints have an unspoken St. John is an argument proving the depiction of Christ as consubstantial with the Most Holy Theotokos. The holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm have arguments that we classify as a separate, ninth group, which is not included in the categorization of the arguments of St. John. Two arguments prp. Theodore (about the glory and honor that the Incarnation brings to the indescribable Deity, and about the differences between an icon and an idol) and two arguments from St. Nikephoros (about the wrongness of the iconoclasts due to the introduction of division in the Church, and about refuting the opinion about the success of iconoclast rulers in state affairs) are the author’s not only in their subject matter, but also in theme, which additionally characterizes the independence of theology in defense of icons of a later period. In addition, each of the four holy fathers examined has its own unique and independent style of presentation. The Monk John of Damascus presents the most wide-ranging thematic work with a detailed systematization of the theoretical part. The Monk Theodore Studite succinctly and at the same time deeply examines the most important and relevant topics of iconoclastic polemics, offering the author's terms and definitions. Saint Nikephoros, extensively and polemically, with direct denunciations of his opponents, presents a deep and detailed argument on the same topics as St. Theodore, periodically exposing the logical errors of his opponents. Saint Methodius offers a fairly simple and concise argument on several key themes of the second wave iconoclastic polemics. The historical context of the iconoclastic disputes shows that the crisis was a more complex phenomenon in the empire of an anti-clerical orientation, and the doctrinal, theological aspect of the confrontation was only part of it. There were repeated persecutions by emperors against icon worshipers and their main characters. Under the persecutor emperor Constantine V, in 754, an iconoclastic council took place, which dogmatized the main theses of the iconoclast heretics. The main protagonist of the first wave of iconoclasm was St. John of Damascus, who compiled the most important work in defense of icon veneration, with rich dogmatic and thematic coverage. The VII Ecumenical Council became the Orthodox response to heresy, and approved a number of theological provisions that condemned iconoclasm. The second stage of iconoclasm, which arose a century after the beginning of the first, brought new persecution from iconoclast emperors, but also new patristic works in defense of icon veneration. St. Theodore the Studite, St. Nikephoros of Constantinople were at the center of the confrontation with the iconoclast emperor Leo V, and suffered in connection with the defense of icon veneration both in the theological and polemical field, and for active intra-church activities during this period. Orthodoxy triumphed in 843 under Patriarch Methodius at the Council of Constantinople, which established icon veneration in the empire and glorified St. Theodora and St. Nikifor, who had already died by that time. In his work “Three Words of Defense,” St. John tried to substantiate the veneration of icons from different angles. The saint reveals the theory of the concepts of image and worship, introduces their varieties, among which he indicates the place of the icon and its worship. The fundamental difference between the worship of God and the worship of creation is one of the main theses in the theology of the Holy Father. A significant part of the argument is occupied by Christology, at the center of which is the dogma of the true Incarnation of God the Word, who hypostatizes human nature, becomes visible and, therefore, depictable in the flesh. In addition, summarizing the argumentation of Rev. John, we can conclude that any participation in God, connection with Him, including connection by name or image, means some kind of grace-filled participation in Him. The Most Holy Theotokos and the saints also participate in God, becoming like Him by the aspiration of the will, as well as by their holy or martyr’s life. Thus, they turn out to be bearers of divine grace, and also receive veneration by Christians, which can also be expressed in the veneration of their iconographic images. St. John emphasizes that the value of an icon is associated with the image depicted on it, and not in connection with the material from which the icon is created. The Reverend Father also reveals the correct understanding of the prohibitions on creating images in the Decalogue. The Holy Father appends to his own work a large number of patristic quotations confirming the validity of the veneration of holy icons, thereby providing arguments not only from the Holy Scriptures, but also from the Holy Tradition of the Church, and also shows that iconoclasm is an innovation. The Holy Father also substantiates the theme of the practical use of icons for spiritual life, and also affirms the thesis that worldly rulers do not have the power to interfere in the affairs of the Church and Her doctrine. Analysis and categorization of the argumentation of St. John on various thematic groups allowed us to more thoroughly consider the argumentation of the Greek fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm from the point of view of the question posed about reception. We can talk about a partial coincidence of argumentation both within thematic groups and across the list of topics as a whole. For example, the holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclastic disputes have virtually no arguments related to the practical benefits of icons for spiritual life, as well as those related to the Most Holy Theotokos and the saints. The argumentation associated with the ban on the creation of images in the Decalogue coincides in its essence almost completely, differing only in some accents. The greatest difference occurs in the first four thematic groups: less than half of the arguments of these groups are common to theologians of the two waves of iconoclasm, and St. Theodore and St. Nikifor often deepens and develops those arguments whose subject coincides with the arguments of St. John. We can talk about a possible indirect quotation of St. Theodore St. John in two fragments of the considered works. Speaking about specific differences in the theology of the holy fathers under consideration, we should point out, first of all, the theme of the depictability and describability of Christ, which dominates among the holy fathers of the second wave of iconoclasm. The development of Christological argumentation leads Saints Theodore and Nicephorus to the argument about the depictability of the Hypostasis of Christ according to humanity, as well as to the conclusion that the hypostasis of the prototype is depicted on the icon, and not its nature. Saint Methodius, due to the small volume of his work in defense of icon veneration, does not express any author’s arguments on the issues sought; his theology from the point of view of the purpose of this work is less valuable and does not allow us to draw any additional conclusions. Differences in argumentation may be partly due to external reasons, for example, the argument about the 82nd rule of the Council of Trulla may have been absent from St. John for the reason that the saint simply did not have the texts of the decisions of this council, or because of the long church-wide reception of the rules of this council. Also in the works a number of arguments were found that could not be categorized in accordance with the classification chosen in the second chapter; such arguments were classified in a special group in the third chapter of the work, which adds grounds for the assertion of some originality of the icon-venerable theology of St. Theodora and St. Nikifor. It should also be noted that the author’s unique polemical style is inherent in each of the holy fathers examined in the work, which also influences the content of the argument and its character. As a result, we can confidently talk about reception only at the level of ideas and the substantive part of a number of arguments in defense of icon veneration, but not at the level of references or direct quotation of St. John in the works of later theologians. There is a rather indirect reception, which may be due, among other things, to the influence of the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council and, more importantly, the theological arguments of the Iconoclastic Council of 754. St. John wrote his own works before the developed theological position of his opponents appeared, and therefore is the most universal in the actual argumentation in terms of thematic coverage, and therefore develops each of the arguments less comparatively. St. Theodore and St. Nikephoros, on the other hand, had before them a specifically formulated argumentation of their opponents and, perhaps therefore, their thematic coverage is narrower, deeper and developed in specific areas, they improve terminology and formulations, and come to more specific and applicable conclusions. List of used literature 1. Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. M.: Russian Bible Society, 2003. 1295 p. 2. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published in Russian translation at the Kazan Theological Academy. T. 7., ed. 3rd. Kazan: central printing house, 1909. 332 p. 3. Athanasius the Great, St. Like the saints Athanasius the Great, “The Miracle of the Icon in Virita” and His “On Definitions.” Translation and comments by P.K. Dobrotsvetov // Sretensky collection. Issue 5. M., 2014. pp. 26–50. 4. John of Damascus, St. Three words of defense against those who condemn holy icons or images. Per. from Greek A. Bronzova. St. Petersburg: Publication by bookseller I.L. Tuluzova. 1893. XXXVIII + 168 pp. 5. John of Damascus. prp. Source of knowledge // Translation from ancient Greek and comments by D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, I.A. Sagardas. M.: Indrik, 2002. 416 p. 6. John of Damascus, St. Complete collection of works of St. John of Damascus. Volume 1. Translated from Greek. Sagarda A.I. St. Petersburg: Publication of the Imperial St. Petersburg Theological Academy. 1913 442 p. 7. Methodius of Constantinople, St. A Word about Holy Icons // Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997. 224 p. pp. 189–195. 8. Nikephoros of Constantinople, St. Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part one. Part two // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. vol. 65, 67. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 443, 254 pp. 9 . Theodore the Studite, St. Messages. Book 1. M., The Parish of the Holy Spirit of Descent, 2003, 512 p. 10. Theodore the Studite, St. Moral and ascetic creations. Dogmatic-polemical creations. Words. Liturgical-canonical creations // Creations. In 3 volumes. T. 2. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. 864 p. 11. Patrologiae Graecae vol. 100. S. Nicephorus CP., S. Methodius CP., S. Gregorius Decapolita, Christophorus Alexandrinus, Georgius Nicomediensis./J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1863. 1544 col. 12. Patrologiae Graecae vol. 94. S. Joannes Damascenus./ J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1864. 1608 col. 13. Patrologiae Graecae vol. 99. S. Theodorus Studita./ J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1903. 1904 col. Scientific and theological literature 14. Andreev I.D. St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople: (Essay on his life and work in connection with the course of the iconoclastic unrest) // Theological Bulletin 1899. Vol. 2. No. 6. pp. 143–180 (2nd page); No. 7. pp. 302–346. (2nd pagin.); No. 8. pp. 459–504 (3rd page). 15. Asmus V., prot., Kuzenkov P.V. Ecumenical Council VII // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2009. T. IX: “Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God - Second Coming.” pp. 645–660. 16. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997. 224 p. 17. Afinogenov D.E. Leo III the Isaurian // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2020. T. XL: “Langton - Li Ji.” pp. 292–295. 18. Afinogenov D.E. Methodius I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2021. T. XXXXV: “Medon Vicariate - Mikhail Pareheli.” pp. 131–138. 19. Baranov V.A. Iconoclasm // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2014. T. XXII: “Icon - In Rospev”. pp. 31–44. 20. Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient church. T. 4. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. Petrograd: Third State Printing House, 1918. 600 p. 21. Bulgakov M., Metropolitan Orthodox dogmatic theology. In two volumes. T. 2. Ed. 4. St. Petersburg, R. Golike Printing House. 1883. 674 p. 22. Bychkov V.V. A short history of Byzantine aesthetics / V. V. Bychkov. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1991. 407 p. 23. Vasiliev A. A. Arabic version of the life of St. John of Damascus. St. Petersburg: type. M. Merkusheva, 1913. 22 p. 24. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev: Printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Dormition Lavra, 1907. 312 p. 25. Davydenkov O., prot. Dogmatic theology: a textbook / Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2017. 624 p. 26. Danilov A.V. Anthropology and theology of iconoclasm // Theological Bulletin of the Smolensk Orthodox Theological Seminary. 2022. No. 1. P. 36–55. 27. Dobroklonsky A.P., prof. St. Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studio. Odessa: “Economic” printing house, 1913. XX + 1648 p. 28. Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 17th–19th centuries about the Orthodox faith. M.: Synodal Printing House, 1900. 163 p. 29. Lives of saints in Russian, set out according to the guide of the Chetyih-Menya of St. Demetrius of Rostov. Book four. December. M.: Kovcheg, 2010. 832 p., ill. 30. Icon in Russian literature and culture. Collection of articles // Comp. V.V. Lepakhin. M.: Pilgrim, 2012. 608 p. 31. Justin Popovich, Rev. Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church // Collection of works of St. Justin (Popovich). In four volumes. T. 2. M.: Pilgrim, 2006. 607 p. 32. Kapriev G. Byzantine philosophy. Four synthesis centers / Georgy Kapriev; [transl. from Bulgarian G.V. Vdovina; scientific ed. D.V. Zaitsev, N.E. Novikov, Yu.I. Posashko]; St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Department of Theology; Scientific and Educational Theological Association; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Foundation for the support of scientific theological research "Theoesthetics". St. Petersburg: Publishing house SPbDA, 2022. 704 p. 33. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. Minsk: Belarusian Exarchate, 2008. 700 p. 34. Kozlov M., priest. Brief information about St. John of Damascus and his works // John of Damascus, St. Creations. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays. / Translation and comments by priest. Maxim Kozlova, D.E. Afinogenova. M.: Martis 1997. 351 p. pp. 7–18. 35. Kuzenkov P.V. Councils of Constantinople // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2019. T. XXXVII: “Konstantin - Korin”. pp. 299–343. 36. Lazarev V.N. History of Byzantine painting. T. 1. M., Art. 1986. 332 p. 37. Lauth E. priest. John of Damascus // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2010. T. XXIV: “John - John of Ephesus.” pp. 27–66. 38. Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons / V.N. Lossky, L. A. Uspensky; lane from fr. V.A. Reshchikova, L.A. Uspenskaya. M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University: Eksmo, 2014. 336 pp.: ill. 39. Lukhovitsky L.V. Byzantine iconoclasm – a dispute about terms? // Indo-European linguistics and classical philology-XIV. Proceedings of the International Conference, held June 21–23, 2010. In two parts / Rep. editor N. N. Kazansky. Part 2. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2010. 499 p. 40. Lukhovitsky L.V. Jeria Cathedral // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2014. T. XXI: “Iveron Icon of the Mother of God - Ikimatariy”. pp. 301–304. 41. Lukhovitsky L.V. History of the first period of iconoclasm and current politics in “Apologeticus atque Antirrhetici” by Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople // Byzantine timebook. 2009. T. 68 (93). pp. 59–74. 42. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2010. T. XLIX: “Nöldeke - Nicodemus”. pp. 629–639. 43. Lukhovitsky L.V. The main theological and polemical work of Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople “Apologe1icus atque Antirrhetici”: an experience of complex historical and philological analysis. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Moscow, 2010. 23 p. 44. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. M.: Rays of Sofia, 2007. 384 p. 45. Mikhaltsov N.N. Christological argumentation of St. John of Damascus in the context of the philosophy of icon veneration. NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Right. 2020. 45 (1). pp. 81–87. 46. Ozolin N. prot. Icon // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2014. T. XXII: “Icon - In Rospev”. pp. 8–25. 47. Ostrogorsky G. A. Epistemological foundations of the dispute about holy icons // Russian-Byzantine Bulletin. 2022. No. 1 (8). pp. 31–37. 48. Ostrogorsky, G.A. History of the Byzantine state / Trans. from German: M.V. Gratian; ed.: P.V. Kuzenkov. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. 895 p., ill., maps. 49. Pavlov A., prot. Triumph of Orthodoxy: Zealous champion of icon veneration // ZhMP. 1994. No. 7/8. pp. 55–66. 50. Popova O.S. Paths of Byzantine art. M.: GAMMA-PRESS, 2013. 460 p. 406 ill. 51. Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. Translation from Greek. M.: Synodal Printing House, 1900. 271 p. 52. Preobrazhensky V., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826 M: Printing house I.E. Ermakova, 1896. 356 p. 53. Sakharov Nikolai, hierodeacon. 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. 2001. No. 28; No. 29; No. 30. 54. Simonov V.V. General history of the Church. T. 2. M: Nauka, 2017. 834 p. 55. Sokolov I.I. Venerable Theodore the Studite, his church-social and theological-literary activities // Works of St. Theodora Studite. SPbDA publication. St. Petersburg, printing house of M. Merkushev, 1907. P. XI–CXVI. 56. Uspensky L.A., prof. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. – Pereslavl: Publishing House of the Brotherhood in the Name of St. blgv. Prince Alexander Nevsky, 1996. 656 p. 57. Farkovets M., prot. Life of St. our father John of Damascus (on the 1200th anniversary of his repose) // ZhMP. M., 1976. No. 12. pp. 57–60. 58. Florensky P.A. priest Iconostasis. Selected works on art. SPb.: Mithril. Russian book, 1993. 365 p. 59. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk: Publishing House of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006. 336 p. 60. Yushkov K., priest. St. John of Damascus on the veneration of icons // ZhMP, M., 1976. No. 7. pp. 76–79. 61. Yazykova I. Co-creation of an image. Theology of the Icon / Series “Modern Theology”. M.: BBI Publishing House, 2012. 368 pp.: ill. John of Damascus, St. Three words of defense against those who condemn holy icons or images. Per. from Greek A. Bronzova. St. Petersburg: Publication by bookseller I.L. Tuluzova. 1893. – XXXVIII + 168 p. John of Damascus. St. Source of knowledge / Translation from ancient Greek and comments by D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, I.A. Sagardas. M.: Indrik 2002. pp. 156–337. John of Damascus, St. Creations. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays. / Translation and comments by priest. Maxim Kozlova, D.E. Afinogenova. M.: Martis 1997. pp. 82–118. Theodore the Studite, St. Creations: In 3 volumes. Volume two: Moral and ascetic creations. Dogmatic and polemical creations. Words. Liturgical-canonical works. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. pp. 247–324. Theodore the Studite, St. Messages. Book 1. M.: Parish of the Holy Spirit of Descent, 2003, pp. 3–17. Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part one // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 65. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 pp. 138–379. Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part two // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 67. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 254 p. Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part one // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 65. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907, pp. 126–138. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997. pp. 189–195. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk: Publishing House of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006. 336 p. Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons / V.N. Lossky, L. A. Uspensky; lane from fr. V.A. Reshchikova, L.A. Uspenskaya. M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University: Eksmo, 2014. 336 pp.: ill. Uspensky L.A., prof. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. Pereslavl: Publishing House of the Brotherhood in the Name of St. blgv. Prince Alexander Nevsky, 1996. 656 p. Bychkov V.V. Small history of Byzantine aesthetics / V.V. Bychkov. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1991. 407 p. John of Damascus, St. Three words of defense against those who condemn holy icons or images. Per. from Greek A. Bronzova. St. Petersburg: Publication by bookseller I.L. Tuluzova. 1893. pp. III–XXXVIII. Kapriev G. Byzantine philosophy. Four synthesis centers / Georgy Kapriev; [transl. from Bulgarian G.V. Vdovina; scientific ed. D.V. Zaitsev, N.E. Novikov, Yu.I. Posashko]; St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Department of Theology; Scientific and Educational Theological Association; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Foundation for the support of scientific theological research "Theoesthetics". St. Petersburg: Publishing house SPbDA, 2022. 704 p. Lauth E. priest. John of Damascus //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2010. T. XXIV: “John - John of Ephesus.” pp. 27–66. Sakharov N., hierodeacon. 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. 2001. No. 28; No. 29; No. 30. URL: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Damaskin/o-prichinah-ikonoborcheskih-sporov-soglasno- traktatu-prepodobnogo-ioanna-damaskina-pervoe-zashititelnoe-slovo-protiv-otvergayushih-svjatye-ikony (date of access: 04/25/2023). Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev: Printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Assumption Lavra, 1907. 312 p. Preobrazhensky V., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826 M: Printing house I.E. Ermakova, 1896. 356 p. Sokolov I.I. Venerable Theodore the Studite, his church-social and theological-literary activities // Works of St. Theodora Studite. SPbDA publication. St. Petersburg, printing house of M. Merkushev, 1907. P. XI–CXVI. Dobroklonsky A.P., prof. St. Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studio. Odessa: “Economic” printing house, 1913. XX + 1648 p. Lukhovitsky L.V. The main theological and polemical work of Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople “Apologeticus atque Antirrhetici”: an experience of complex historical and philological analysis. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Moscow, 2010. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2010. T. XLIX: “Nöldeke - Nicodemus”. pp. 629–639. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997. pp. 85–115. Afinogenov D.E. Methodius I //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2021. T. XXXXV: “Medon Vicariate - Mikhail Pareheli.” pp. 131–138. Preobrazhensky V., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826 M: Printing house I.E. Ermakova, 1896. 356 p. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997. 224 p. Ostrogorsky, G.A. History of the Byzantine state / Trans. from German: M.V. Gratian; ed.: P.V. Kuzenkov. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. 895, [1] p., ill., maps. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. M: Belarusian Exarchate, 2008, 700 p. Bolotov V.V., prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. Petrograd: Third State Printing House, 1918. 600 p. Kuzenkov P.V. Ecumenical Council VII //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2009. T. IX: “Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God - Second Coming” pp. 645–660. Kuzenkov P.V. Councils of Constantinople //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2019. T. XXXVII: “Konstantin - Korin”. pp. 299–343. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. M: Belarusian Exarchate, 2008. P. 539. Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 510. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. M: Belarusian Exarchate, 2008. P. 542. Simonov V.V. General history of the Church. T. 2. 2017. P. 117. Afinogenov D.E. Leo III the Isaurian //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2020. T. XL. pp. 293–295. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. M: Belarusian Exarchate, 2008. P. 544. Ostrogorsky G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 221 Afinogenov D.E. Leo III the Isaurian //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2020. T. XL. pp. 293–295. Bolotov V.V., prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 518. See: Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 224. Lazarev V.N. History of Byzantine painting. M., 1986. P. 53. See: Lazarev V.N. History of Byzantine painting. M., 1986. P. 232. Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 522. It was also forbidden to lay hands on sacred vessels without the permission of the emperor or patriarch on the grounds that they contained any images Lukhovitsky L.V. Jeria Cathedral // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. XXI. pp. 301–304. Ostrogorsky G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 235. Popova O.S. Paths of Byzantine art. M., 2013. P. 162. Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 543. Andreev I.D. St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople // Theological Bulletin 1899. T. 2. No. 7. P. 322, 343 See: Andreev I.D. St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople // Theological Bulletin 1899. T. 2. No. 7. P. 330. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 29. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 7. Kazan, 1909. pp. 283–295. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 7. Kazan, 1909. P. 297. Asmus V., prot., Kuzenkov P.V. Ecumenical Council VII // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2009. T. IX. pp. 645–660. Sagarda A.I. Complete collection of works of St. John of Damascus. Volume 1. St. Petersburg, 1913. P. VIII. See: Sagarda A.I. Complete collection of works of St. John of Damascus. Volume 1. St. Petersburg, 1913. P. XII. Kozlov M., priest. Creations of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays. M., 1997. P. 10. Lauth E., priest. John of Damascus // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. XXIV. pp. 27–66. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. pp. XXIV–XXV. Bolotov V.V. , prof. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 4. P. 521 St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. pp. 23–42. See: Rev. John of Damascus. St.. pp. XVI–XXIX. John of Damascus, St. Source of knowledge / Translation from ancient Greek and comments by D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, I.A. Sagardas. M.: Indrik 2002. pp. 156–337. John of Damascus, St. Creations. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays. / Translation and comments by priest. Maxim Kozlova, D.E. Afinogenova. M.: Martis 1997. pp. 82–118. Preobrazhensky V., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826 M., 1896. P. 87. Ostrogorsky, G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 250. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 44. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 54. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 48. Ostrogorsky, G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 260. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 58. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. XLIX. pp. 629–639. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 124. Ostrogorsky, G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 269 Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 276 Afinogenov D.E. Methodius I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2021. T. XXXXV. pp. 131–138. Kuzenkov P.V. Councils of Constantinople // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2019. T. XXXVII. pp. 299–343. Ostrogorsky G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 249. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. pp. 47–49. Dobroklonsky A.P., prof. St. Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studio. Odessa, 1913. P. XVIII. Ostrogorsky G.A. History of the Byzantine state. M., 2011. P. 264. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 122. See: Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 125. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. XLIX. pp. 629–639. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 127. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. XLIX. pp. 629–639. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 131. See: Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 148. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 161. Afinogenov D.E. Methodius I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2021. T. XXXXV. pp. 131–138. Filaret of Chernigov, archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. St. Petersburg, 1859. T. 3. P. 298 See: Theodore the Studite, St. Creations: In 3 volumes. Volume two: Moral and ascetic creations. Dogmatic polemical creations. Words. Liturgical-canonical works. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. P. Theodore the Studite, St. Messages. Book 1. M.: Parish of the Holy Spirit of Descent, 2003, pp. 3–17. Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part one // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 65. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part two // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 67. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 Creations of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part one // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published by the MDA. T. 65. Sergiev Posad, TSL printing house. 1907 S. Lukhovitsky L.V. Nikephoros I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2010. T. XLIX. pp. 629–639. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M.: Indrik, 1997, pp. 189–195. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 9. C. 7; III, 16. P. 100. Bychkov V.V. Small history of Byzantine aesthetics / V.V. Bychkov. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1991. P. 189. See: ibid. III, 19. P. 102. See: Bychkov V.V. Small history of Byzantine aesthetics / V.V. Bychkov. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1991. III, 18–23, pp. 101–104. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. III, 23. P. 104. Lepakhin V.V. Icon and image //Icon in Russian literature and culture. Collection of articles. M., 2012. P. 12. Uspensky L.A., prof. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. Pereslavl, 1996. P. 451. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 14. P. 10. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. III, 28–32. pp. 109–111. See: ibid. III, 34. P. 113. See: ibid. III, 36. P. 114. See: ibid. III, 37. P. 114. See: Rev. John of Damascus. Prp. III, 39. P. 115. Lepakhin V.V. Icon and image // Icon in Russian literature and culture. Collection of articles / Comp. V.V. Lepakhin. M., 2012. P. 39. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. III, 33. P. 113. See: Rev. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 8. P. 59. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk, 2006. P. 319. The argument about the prohibition of making images in the Decalogue is discussed separately in § 2.5. and is not associated with See: Rev. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 22. P. 20. See: ibid. II, 16. P. 57. See: Rev. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 25. P. 22. Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. M., 1900. P. 34 Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 17th–19th centuries about the Orthodox faith. M., 1900. P. 154. St. Justin Popovich. Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church. T. 2. M., 2006. P. 349. See: Rev. Justin Popovich. Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church. T. 2. M., 2006. P. 360. Bulgakov M., Metropolitan Orthodox dogmatic theology. T. 2. St. Petersburg. 1883. P. 79. Davydenkov O., prot. Dogmatic theology. M., 2017. P. 382. See: ibid. III, 6. P. 91. See: ibid. III, 26. P. 108. St. John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. Book 3, ch. 7. M., 2002. P. 245. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 16. P. 12. See: Rev. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 16. P. 12. Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons. M., 2014. P. 117. Kapriev G. Byzantine philosophy. Four centers of synthesis. SPb., 2022. P. 222. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk, 2006. P. 320. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk, 2006. P. 322 Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons. M., 2014. P. 48. Mikhaltsov N.N. Christological argumentation of St. John of Damascus in the context of the philosophy of icon veneration // NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Right. T. 45. No. 1 (2020). P. 84. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 16. C. 12. See: ibid. I, 16. P. 13. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. III, 12. P. 98. Kapriev G. Byzantine philosophy. Four centers of synthesis. St. Petersburg, 2022. P. 224. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk, 2006. P. 315. Mikhaltsov N.N. Christological argumentation of St. John of Damascus in the context of the philosophy of icon veneration. 2020. 45 (1). P. 84. Ostrogorsky G. A. Epistemological foundations of the dispute about holy icons. 2022. No. 1 (8). P. 36. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 8. P. 56. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. III, 18. P. 101. See: ibid. III, 33. P. 112. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. Minsk, 2006. P. 323. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 8. P. 6. See: ibid. II, 7. P. 47. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. . Minsk, 2006. P. 321. See: ibid. III, 33. P. 112. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 19. P. 16. Kapriev G. Byzantine philosophy. Four centers of synthesis. SPb., 2022. P. 225. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 21. P. 19. See: ibid. II, 11. P. 52. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 18. P. 15. See: ibid. I, 21. P. 19. Florensky P. priest. Iconostasis. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 50. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. II, 10. P. 51. See: ibid. II, 17. P. 58. St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. II, 12. P. 54. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M, 1997. P. 111. Sokolov I.I. Venerable Theodore the Studite, his church-social and theological-literary activities. St. Petersburg, 1907. S. CVI. Preobrazhensky V., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite and his time. 759–826 M., 1896. P. 346. Afinogenov D.E. Methodius I // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: 2021. T. XXXXV. pp. 131–138. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 1–1. C. 289. See: Rev. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 8. pp. 253–254. See: ibid. II, 13. P. 268. See: ibid. II, 18. P. 272. See: ibid. II, 24. P. 275. Wed: St. John of Damascus. Words in defense of holy icons. I, 9. C. 7; III, 16. P. 120. See: ibid. II, 8. P. 254. See: ibid. I, 11. P. 256. See: ibid. III, 2–1. C. 309. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 15. P. 16. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 28. P. 55. Ostrogorsky G. A. Epistemological foundations of the dispute about holy icons // Russian-Byzantine Bulletin. 2022. No. 1 (8). P. 36. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 16. P. 17. Ozolin N. prot. Icon //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M, 2014. T. XXII. pp. 8–25. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 3–1. C. 313. See: Rev. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 3–1. P. 313. See: ibid. III, 3–9. P. 315. See: ibid. III, 3–11. C. 316. Ostrogorsky G.A. Epistemological foundations of the dispute about holy icons // Russian-Byzantine Bulletin. 2022. No. 1 (8). P. 36. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 3–5. C. 314. Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons. M., 2014. P. 55. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. II, 17. P. 270. See: ibid. II, 17. P. 270. See: ibid. II, 17. P. 271. See: ibid. I, 14. P. 259. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 183. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 17. P. 260. See: Rev. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 19. P. 261. See: ibid. II, 28. P. 277. See: ibid. II, 28. P. 278. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A word in defense of our immaculate, pure and true Christian faith and against those who think that we worship idols. 31. P. 201. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 30. C. 56. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 30. C. 57. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A word in defense of our immaculate, pure and true Christian faith and against those who think that we worship idols. 61. P. 310. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 23. C. 40. St. Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. A word about holy icons. 4. P. 191. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A word in defense of our immaculate, pure and true Christian faith and against those who think that we worship idols. 65. P. 318. St. Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. A word about holy icons. 8. P. 194. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. IΙ, 12. P. 119. See: ibid. IΙ, 13. pp. 121–122. See: St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. ΙΙ, 13. P. 122. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 4–13. P. 323. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 26. P. 52. See: ibid. I, 38. P. 69. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. II, 7. P. 266. See: ibid. III, 1–7. C. 291. See: ibid. I, 16. P. 260. See: ibid. I, 19. P. 261. St. Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. A word about holy icons. 7. P. 192. See: ibid. II, 18. P. 271; II, 24. P. 275. See, for example, St. Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. A word about holy icons. 7. P. 193. Like the saints Athanasius the Great, “The Miracle of the Icon in Virita” and His “On Definitions.” Translation and comments by P.K. Dobrotsvetov // Sretensky collection. Issue 5. M., 2014. pp. 26–50. See: ibid. II, 19. P. 273. See: ibid. II, 38. P. 281. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 5. P. 5; A protective word regarding honest icons. 2. P. 126. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. II, 49. P.288. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 184. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 11. P. 13. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A protective word regarding honest icons. 2. P. 126. See: St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A protective word regarding honest icons. 8. P. 134. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 3. P. 249. See: ibid. III, 1–4. C. 290. See: Rev. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 20. P. 262. See: ibid. II, 1. P. 264. See: ibid. II, 8. P. 267. See: ibid. III, 1–6. C. 291. St. Theodore the Studite. Some questions to the iconoclasts who claim that our Lord Jesus Christ is indescribable in bodily form. P. 352. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 1–17. P. 295. See: ibid. ΙΙΙ, 1–18. C. 295. See: ibid. ΙΙΙ, 1–19. P. 295. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907 P. 184. See: ibid. III, 1–22. C. 297. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 185. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 1–34. C. 300. See: ibid. III, 1–34. P. 301See: ibid. III, 1–34. C. 301. Ostrogorsky G. A. Epistemological foundations of the dispute about holy icons // Russian-Byzantine Bulletin. 2022. No. 1 (8). P. 35. Lossky V.N. The meaning of icons. M., 2014. P. 47. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 186. Ozolin N. prot. Icon //Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2014. T. XXII. pp. 8–25. St. Theodore the Studite. Seven chapters against the iconoclasts. 1. P. 359. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A word in defense of our immaculate, pure and true Christian faith and against those who think that we worship idols. 20. P. 179. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 20. C. 26. See: ibid. I, 22. C. 37. See: ibid. I, 39. P. 72. See: ibid. I, 23. P. 39. See: ibid. I, 25. C. 46. See: St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 47. P. 89. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. Minsk: Rays of Sofia, 2007. P. 333. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. II, 43. P. 284. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. IΙ, 12. pp. 117–119. See: ibid. IΙ, 19. P. 131. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 24. P. 44. St. John of Damascus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. III, 11. P. 250. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 10. P. 256. See: ibid. I, 12. P. 258. See: ibid. I, 13. P. 258. Yazykova I. Co-creation of an image. Theology of the icon. M., 2012. P. 89. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 10. P. 255. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 25. C. 46. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. III, 1–54. P. 307. Grossu N., priest. Venerable Theodore the Studite. His time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. P. 187 St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I, 5. P. 251. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 29. P. 55. St. Methodius, Patr. Constantinople. A word about holy icons. 1. P. 189. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 9. P. 10. St. Theodore the Studite. Three refutations of the iconoclasts. I. P. 253. See: ibid. I, 7. P. 253. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 28–29. C. 55. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. A word of defense to the Universal Church regarding the new discord over honest icons. 7. P. 132. Lukhovitsky L.V. History of the first period of iconoclasm and current politics in “Apologeticus atque Antirrhetici” by Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. 2009. T. 68 (93). P. 66. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. III, 79. P. 246. See: ibid. III, 81. P. 247. See: ibid. I, 18. P. 20. St. Nikifor, Patr. Constantinople. Objections. I, 26. C. 47. See: ibid. I, 26. pp. 48, 52.