The 7th Ecumenical Council and St Theodore the Studite on Holy Icons

by David Clayton

Whenever I write about icons it always provokes a flurry of responses from people who have
strongly held views about the subject. Most comments relate to the following three issues and so
it is these that I thought I would address here:

First, how is the image related to the saint depicted in the image? Is the icon, for
example, a grace-filled vessel in which there is a personal presence of the saint in
question?

Second, how does the status of icons relate to sacramentals such as crosses or rosaries?

Third, what is the status of what we recognize today as the iconographic form? How
does it compare to other styles in Christian art (for example those styles referred to by
Pope Benedict XVI in as authentically liturgical also – the baroque ‘at its best’ and the
gothic)? Is the icon a higher art form than any other?

What I hope to offer is the traditional Catholic understanding of these things. I would like to
acknowledge the help of Dr Caroline Farey at the Maryvale Institute in writing this.

Consideration of these points is not new. The debate that eventually sorted them out took place
over centuries, as part of the debate about the legitimacy of the veneration of sacred images. This
was established dogmatically by the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicea of 787AD. Although this
closed one period of iconoclasm – when those who opposed the use of sacred imagery destroyed
it - but it was not universally accepted. Another iconoclastic period arose shortly afterwards.
After further theological clarification (and power struggles within the Byzantine Empire) this
second iconoclastic period ended in 843AD with the Synod of Constantinople, celebrated in the
Eastern Church as the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

The theological struggle over the legitimacy of imagery was essentially was one of Christology.
It rests on the understanding of the Incarnation and the relationship between Christ’s divinity and
his humanity. The main protagonists here are figures such as St Cyril of Alexandria, St Maximus
the Confessor, and George Cyprius. The three great defenders of icons during the later,
iconoclastic, period were St John of Damascus, St Nicephorus of Constantinople and finally St
Theodore the Studite.

For the purposes of this article, we shall consider for the most part the relevant conclusions
rather than the detail of the deliberations, focusing firstly on the judgement of the Council, and
then primarily on the theology of St Theodore the Studite whose interpretation of the Council
corresponds to what I understand to be the view traditionally held by the Catholic Church. In
support of what I say I shall include extended quotation from Theodore in a separate section at
the end. The stance of the Church has not, to my knowledge changed since in regard to these
matters and subsequent councils, such as the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council,
have served to reinforce what had already been stated.

The 7th Ecumenical Council stated as follows:

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and

the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all

certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the

venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth

in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in

pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus

Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious

people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more

readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these

should be given due salutation and honourable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which

pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross

and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered

according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which

the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus

the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of

the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in

Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which

we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O

daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord

hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of

thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be

unto thee forever.”

So this is clear, the veneration of icons is legitimate. The image is distinct from the person it
portrays and the honour paid to the image passes onto that which is portrayed. The Council does
not answer directly, however the questions that we are asking here. In order to do that we must
look to Theodore the Studite, the abbot of a monastery in Constantinople.
The resolution of the question of the legitimacy of sacred images was only possible once the
understanding of how the person of Christ could be at once both divine and human was resolved.
This was established in the 5th Ecumenical Council which took place in 553AD in
Constantinople. The Catechism states it as follows:

‘Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person. For this reason he is the
one and only mediator between God and men. Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and
the other human, not confused but united in the one person of God’s Son. The Incarnation,
therefore, is the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one
person of the Word.’ (CCC 480, 481, 483) So the critical thing is just this: Jesus Christ is one
person, but two natures, divine and human.

Why is this important? How is this applied to consideration of the production of images?

The answer, say the Church Fathers, relates to what a human artist is capable of representing in a
work of art. Theodore is clear that His divine nature cannot be ‘captured’ in an image (the
translation I read used the word ‘circumscribed’) and one should not try.

However, Theodore states, the divine person of Christ as man can be circumscribed. This allows
for the possibility of the creation of an image. Any individual man is characterized by his
individual features, those that distinguish him from all others. So if we see a likeness to an
individual represented in an image we behold the person. In the case of the divine person,
therefore, we see the face of Christ, both God and man in nature, when we see his likeness in the
icon.

The icon does not however, says Theodore, participate in the nature of the individual – that is, it
does not contain any aspects of human nature or divine nature, it is just an image. Therefore the
relationship between the image in the icon and the saint in heaven is established by our
perception and apprehension of the likeness. That relationship cannot exist in a way that involves
the icon, therefore, when are not apprehending the likeness portrayed in the image; then the icon
is just wood, paint, gold, gesso etc. A crucial role in establishing this relationship between icon
and saint is played by the imagination, which takes our thoughts from image to saint. It is clear
from this that we pray ‘with’ icons only in the sense that we use them. But when we do so, we
pray along with the saint, just as the saint is praying along with us. Icons, because they are
inanimate objects do not pray.

Theodore’s description is consistent with the Church’s teaching on sacramentals. That is, once
blessed by a prayer (and also by tradition in the case of icons, by writing of the name of the saint
on the painting) the icon is a sacramental.
As with all sacramentals (and distinct from a sacrament) the icon predisposes us, by our
perception of it, to cooperation with grace. The Catechism puts it thus: “Sacramentals do not
confer the grace of the Holy Spirit the way that sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they
prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. ‘For well disposed members of
the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their
lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death and
Resurrection of the Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power.
There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the
sanctification of men and the praise of God.’” (CCC1670)

Prior to the clarification by Theodore, there was confusion in this respect. It persists even in the
earlier writing of the great proponent of icons at the time of the Council in Nicea, John of
Damascus. In his desire to affirm the value of matter, he does not sufficiently differentiate
between sacrament and sacramental. This is because he establishes the relationship between the
icon and the saint entirely from the perspective of participation in the essence (ie the nature) of
the person. So even though he modifies it by degrees, he is it seems always describing a grace-
filled vessel in a way that is beyond the mode of the icon as wood, gold, paint etc. He then
appears to elevate the status of all matter to that of sacrament, by describing icons, crosses, relics
and the Body of Blood of Our Lord as operating in the same way. This was corrected by
Nicephorus and finally and most forcefully by Theodore. Make no mistake, Theodore is still
describing a profound and direct relationship between image and person, but it is by virtue of the
icon circumscribing the human person of a saint; or the divine person as man. The mind is the
means by which the relationship is made real. It jumps from image to person when the icon is
observed.

The theology of Theodore the Studite in regard to sacred images applies as much to the gothic
and the baroque or any other style (or to statues). To the degree that these forms bear the likeness
or characteristics of Our Lord, Our Lady and so on, they are legitimate. In the case of Our Lord
and Our Lady the characteristics are handed down to us by tradition. What is striking when one
looks at the portrayal of, for example, Christ, across all of these traditions there is a large degree
of conformity to the traditional understanding of what they looked like. We can say also,
therefore, the tradition, as articulated by Pope Benedict XVI, that recognizes the iconographic,
the gothic and the baroque as authentic liturgical art forms is consistent with the Council and the
theology of St Theodore1. This is not to diminish the status of iconographic style to something
lower than the esteem with which the Eastern churches hold them; rather, it raises the status of
the gothic and baroque, to the same level.

1
I recommend readers to Pope Benedict’s book, the Spirit of the Liturgy (pub. Ignatius) in regard to consideration
of what makes art appropriate for the liturgy.
 SECTION II

Quotations of Theodore the Studite are taken from JP Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus, series
graeca (Paris 1857ff.) unless otherwise stated.

The translations are as they appear in Schönbörn: God’s Human Face; pub. Ignatius, 1994 and
the page numbers given relate to the page in this book that the translations are taken from.
The italics are quotations of Theodore, otherwise the words are Schönbörn’s.

“‘The icon of someone does not depict his nature but his person’, he states, and he is the first to
offer a theologically balanced explanation for this simple observation that had been made time
and time again during the icon controversy. Theodore gives this clarification:
“‘For how could a nature be depicted, unless it is concretely seen in a person? Peter, for
example, is not portrayed in an icon insofar as he is a being endowed with reason, mortal, and
having a mind and intelligence. For all this characterizes not only Peter but also Paul and John
and everyone else belonging to the same species. Peter rather is portrayed according to those
specific qualities he possesses in addition to the common definition as a human being, such as
the curved nose, the curly hair, the pleasing complexion, the kindly eyes, and anything else in
terms of specific properties of his appearance, by which he is distinguished from the other
individuals of the species.’” (p219-220)

“Thoedore holds in the full Aristotelian sense that the general concept subsists only in the
concrete individuals. Contrary to Platonism, he considers as really existing only the concrete
individuals, while general concepts exist only in abstract and mental form. ‘What is general we
grasp only with our reason and our mind; what is particular we grasp with our eyes, as they see
the things of the senses.’ The icon portrays only what is visible in a man, only what is particular
to him, what distinguishes this man from all other men.” [p221]

“‘The original model is not present in the icon according to its essence, otherwise we
could call the icon “original” and the original we could call “icon”. This would not make any
sense, as both natures [that of original and of icon] each have their own definition. Rather, the
original is present in the icon base on the likeness in relation to the person.’

“…The original is truly present in the icon, but this presence is entirely based on a
relationship to a person. This alone constitutes the icon’s dignity. With this, St Theodore corrects
a certain questionable tendency (which we found, in rudiments, in John Damascene) to consider
the icon itself and as such, in its material, to be some kind of grace-filled vessel, ‘as if it
contained a divine nature or power that would require our veneration’ (the way the Council of
Trent describes this tendency). Theodore the Studite does not hesitate to present this correction
forcefully, by his pointing out that God is neither more nor less present in the icon than in any
other piece of wood:

“‘The depicted body is present in the icon, not as to its nature, but only as regards a
relation [schesis]. Much less is the Divinity, which cannot be “circumscribed” at all, present in
the icon…: not more than he is present I the shadow cast by Christ’s body. Where in any rational
or brute creature, where in any animated or lifeless creation would the Divinity not be present?
Of course, he is present to a greater or lesser degree, according to the analogy of the receiving
nature. Should someone say that God is present in this manner also in the icon, it would not be
false. The same then, certainly applies to the symbol of the cross and the other sacred
objects.’”(p225-226)

“Theodore quotes a custom already mentioned by Leontius of Neapolis and by Patriarch

Germanus: once an icon is worn and has lost its ‘imprint’(charakter), it will without hesitation be
thrown into the fire “like any useless piece of wood’. If the icon as such were a grace-filled
object, nobody would dare burn it. It would in itself be some kind of sacred relic. Different from
John Damascene, who positions icons and relics on the same level, Theodore the Studite sees the
sacredness of the icon entirely in its character, its portraying depiction.’ ”(p226)

“All this does not mean, though, that material things would somehow be worthless.
Theodore emphasizes their proper value. But he refuses to assign some kind of sacred character
to material things, by which the icon would be raised onto the level of a sacrament. Material
things as such receive in the sacramental mysteries a certain healing and sanctifying power. The
bread, changed into the Eucharist, is really the Body of Christ; it is not his image. The baptismal
water obtains its sanctifying power through the Holy Spirit. The wood of the icon, in contrast,
does not turn in such a way into a vehicle of grace. True an icon also sanctifies; but not in the
manner of a sacrament but rather through the spiritual relationship it fosters to the person
depicted. This difference is once again clearly presented when Theodore explains in what sense
one can say that the icon of Christ is Christ himself:

‘If we consider both as to their nature, then Christ and his icon are essentially different
from one another. And yet, as to their name, both are the same. Based on the icon’s nature, we
call its visible reality not “Christ”, not even “image of Christ”, but wood, paint, gold, silver, or
some other material employed. Yet based upon the image of the person depicted, the icon is
called “Christ” or “image of Christ”; Christ because of the identity in name, “image of Christ”
because of the relationship [of the image to Christ].’”(p227)

“St Theodore says that the act of inscribing the name on the icon, as it was understood then,
constitutes the consecration as such of the icon. Consequently, St Theodore insists that on the
icon not be written ‘image of Christ’ but ‘Christ’ since we really behold Christ himself, his
person, in the icon, which does not imply some kind of hypostatic union between Christ and his
image, but is only based on the relationship of intention and similarity between the icon and the
person of Christ, even in the case of a rather remote similarity, for example, when the artist’s
skill is wanting.”(p227-228)

“The image is not a concession to the weak. It is rooted in man’s nature, which the
Eternal Word has taken on forever by becoming man himself. Consequently, contemplation does
not exclude visual beholding. Indeed, the saintly abbot of the Studion does not hesitate to instruct
his monks not to neglect the power of the imagination:

‘Imagination is one of the five powers of the soul. It is a kind of image, as both are
depictions. The image, therefore, that resembles imagination cannot be useless…If imagination
were useless, it would be an utterly futile part of human nature! But then the other powers of the
soul would also be useless: the senses, recollection, intellect, and reason. Thus a reasoned and
sober consideration of the human nature shows how nonsensical it is to despise the image and
the imagination.’

Imagination is not something negative, it is a natural potential. On the way to

contemplation there is no need to eliminate it (as the Evagrian tradition teaches), it only ought to
be purified, just like all the other powers of the soul. But, of course, the imagination is not
purified by never engaging in it, but by focusing it more and more on pure and sacred matters.
Here we should recall the monastic tradition and experience of constantly having your mind on
God as a way of purification. Theodore, in his instructions, reserved an important place for the
mind’s dwelling on God. And the icon plays an important part in this. The frequent gazing on
sacred images purifies the imagination in the same way as the frequent listening to the word of
God.’(p231-232)

‘Theodore repeats almost word for word the profound reflections of Maximus Confessor
on the relationship between the person and nature: ‘Christ therefore is truly one of us, though he
is also God; for he is one of the three Divine Persons. As such he is distinct from the Father and
the Holy Spirit by his property of being Son. He then, as man, is distinct from all other men by
his personal [hypostatic] qualities…’

‘This is the decisive point. The iconoclasts say that Christ is a Divine Person, he cannot
be depicted. Any such attempt would mean to assign to Christ a second person, entirely human
and portrayable. Theodore replies by briefly recalling the Church’s doctrine of the ‘composite
person’ as developed in the wake of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553AD): ‘Were we to assert
that the flesh taken on by the Word possesses its own hypostasis, the argument [of the
iconoclasts] would be valid. But we follow the Faith of the Church and profess that the Person of
the Eternal Word became the person common to both natures, and that this same person
provided the intrinsic existence to the particular human nature with all its properties by which it
is distinct from all other human beings. Thus we are justified in proclaiming that the one and the
same Person of the Eternal Word, as to its divine nature, cannot be “circumscribed”, yet as to its
human nature, can certainly be “circumscribed”. The human nature of Christ does not exist
beside the person of the Logos, in an individual, independent person; it rather obtains its
existence in the person of the Logos (for there is no nature that would not subsist in a specific
hypostasis), and in the person of the Logos can-as specific individual- be seen and
circumscribed.’”(p222-223)

Re St John Damascene (John of Damascus)

‘“Do not despise matter!” John touches here the critical spot of those iconoclastic
tendencies for which the materiality of the icon becomes an insult to the divine original.
“Through matter my salvation is accomplished.” Matter does not lie in the farthest and lowest
regions of relationship to God, as Neoplatonism holds; it is not farthest away from the spiritual
realm and therefore utterly without salvific value. On the contrary: the entire economy of
salvation has always employed material things too. Thus matter is not at all an obstacle on the
way to God, but becomes by its participation in Christ’s mystery the medium through which
salvation is accomplished.’(p196)

“In this positive view of matter, however, John does not sufficiently elaborate that not
every material thing is by itself already an instrument of salvation. John does not distinguish
clearly enough between, for example, the Body of Christ and other material realities, (such as the
cross, icons etc). The body of Christ seems to stand at the same level as the icon.(p196)

‘All other matter however I simply honor and venerate, insofar as it was instrumental in
my salvation and for this reason was endowed with divine power and grace. The wood of the
cross, full of gladness and blessedness, is it not indeed matter? The venerable sacred mountain
[Calvary], the Skull Place [Golgotha] – are they not matter? The life giving, life bringing rock –
are they not matter? The gold and silver used to make crosses, patens and chalices – are they not
matter? And is not before everything else, the Lord’s Body and Blood not matter. You ought to
ban the cult and veneration surrounding these things, or else leave in force the tradition of
venerating also images that are sanctified by the name of God and his friends and thus are
overshadowed the grace of the divine Spirit. Do not despise matter! It is not without honor. For
nothing that comes from God is without honor.’” (p195) [referenced as ‘Damascene, I, 16
(1245AC); translation, slightly adapted, taken from H Hunger, Byzaninische Geiteswelt (Baden-
Baden, 1958), 121f.’]