What do you think?
Rate this book
Popular Patristics Series #6
On the Holy Icons
To many modern Christians the question of icon veneration may seem a marginal issue in theology. To St Theodore the Studite, writing in the midst of the iconoclastic controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries, it was clear that iconoclasm is a serious error, which alienates its followers from God as much as any other heresy. That is to say, rejection of Christian veneration of images effectively denies God's incarnation, which alone makes human salvation possible. If Christ could not be portrayed, then He was not truly man, and humanity was not truly united with God in Him. In our own day, when the material world so often is regarded as mere matter, incapable of being transfigured in Christ, St Theodore's message remains remarkably pertinent.
115 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
9 people are currently reading
441 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 6, 2023
I was quite surprised at how thorough this was and how it’s format lends itself well to reasoning this out with someone interested in the iconographic tradition. The first treatise is more traditional, the second written as an imagined conversation between an iconoclast and an Orthodox, and the last in a syllogistic, logical way. Nearly every possible objection to icon veneration is covered here, except perhaps for if ANYthing at all should ever be venerated (not many strict materialist skeptics in St Theodore’s day, I guess).
What struck me the most was how absolutely dependent all his arguments were and how they directly resulted from, the conclusion of the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils.
The First, that Jesus was always the divine Son of God leads to the idea that an image of His is worth venerating, since He is God.
The Second further defended His divinity by defending the other member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and thus He was fully to be worshipped as much as the Father was, including physically worshipping the body of Jesus since it is literally God’s body.
The Third, that He is fully human because His human mother was an actual and real mother, which requires His nature to be circumscribable (limited/bounded) because it’s fully Human.
The Fourth, which conclusions were most frequently referenced in this work, defended that Jesus Christ was fully God AND fully Man, thus seeming contradictions about the physicality of spiritual worship are resolved in the hypostasis (or person) of Jesus Christ. He really did change everything in being the invisible God made visible, in being the uncircumscribable made circumscribable. I do wonder strongly how non-Chalcedonians would defend icon veneration while rejecting this extremely important council.
The Fifth further defended against Monophysitism and Nestorianism, a necessary step to keep ensure one knows what one is venerating and that Christ’s person unites both God and Man in one person.
The Sixth condemnation of monothelitism and monoenergism did away with the final vestiges of false teaching that there was some way in which Christ was different from every other human, except for sin. Since He is exactly like us in every way, He has all the same properties that we have, this can be depicted as we are and have been by God Himself.
It really brought me to appreciate the location in time of the iconoclastic controversy, providentially allowed to emerge for the Church to struggle through right when She had all the tools needed to defeat it.
What struck me the most was how absolutely dependent all his arguments were and how they directly resulted from, the conclusion of the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils.
The First, that Jesus was always the divine Son of God leads to the idea that an image of His is worth venerating, since He is God.
The Second further defended His divinity by defending the other member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and thus He was fully to be worshipped as much as the Father was, including physically worshipping the body of Jesus since it is literally God’s body.
The Third, that He is fully human because His human mother was an actual and real mother, which requires His nature to be circumscribable (limited/bounded) because it’s fully Human.
The Fourth, which conclusions were most frequently referenced in this work, defended that Jesus Christ was fully God AND fully Man, thus seeming contradictions about the physicality of spiritual worship are resolved in the hypostasis (or person) of Jesus Christ. He really did change everything in being the invisible God made visible, in being the uncircumscribable made circumscribable. I do wonder strongly how non-Chalcedonians would defend icon veneration while rejecting this extremely important council.
The Fifth further defended against Monophysitism and Nestorianism, a necessary step to keep ensure one knows what one is venerating and that Christ’s person unites both God and Man in one person.
The Sixth condemnation of monothelitism and monoenergism did away with the final vestiges of false teaching that there was some way in which Christ was different from every other human, except for sin. Since He is exactly like us in every way, He has all the same properties that we have, this can be depicted as we are and have been by God Himself.
It really brought me to appreciate the location in time of the iconoclastic controversy, providentially allowed to emerge for the Church to struggle through right when She had all the tools needed to defeat it.
February 25, 2020
This work contains what might be thought of a second wave of refutations against iconoclasm, written some fifty years after St John of Damascus's "first wave." Thus the arguments St Theodore makes are somewhat more theologically involved than St John's, because they address claims that the iconoclasts after John had written his treatises.
The translator, Catherine Roth, summarizes Theodore's overarching argument in this way: "If Christ’s human nature is not changed or confused with His divine nature, then He must be able to be portrayed like any human being. If His two natures are not separated, then the one portrayed must be the incarnate God, even though the divine nature itself cannot be portrayed. Indeed, it is not a nature which can be portrayed, whether divine or human, but a hypostasis."
The book consists of three refutations, which address things like the ability for an icon to portray Christ's divinity, the correctness (indeed, necessity) of venerating icons, and the ability to depict Christ after his passion.
This book is an extremely valuable source for anyone interested in the veneration of icons, and especially for those of us who actually venerate icons.
The translator, Catherine Roth, summarizes Theodore's overarching argument in this way: "If Christ’s human nature is not changed or confused with His divine nature, then He must be able to be portrayed like any human being. If His two natures are not separated, then the one portrayed must be the incarnate God, even though the divine nature itself cannot be portrayed. Indeed, it is not a nature which can be portrayed, whether divine or human, but a hypostasis."
The book consists of three refutations, which address things like the ability for an icon to portray Christ's divinity, the correctness (indeed, necessity) of venerating icons, and the ability to depict Christ after his passion.
This book is an extremely valuable source for anyone interested in the veneration of icons, and especially for those of us who actually venerate icons.
April 10, 2024
I say this with all due respect to St Theodore: the sheer amount of sass crammed into this little book is astounding and hilarious. I laughed out loud several times at his taunts of the heretics. Fun read and full of compelling arguments.
March 2, 2009
This is a short book of three parts - three refutations against the iconoclasts.
All three sort of have the characteristic of a back and forth between a heretic and an orthodox speaker. The first treatise is more of a straightforward essay, whereas the second is more of a dialogue, and the third resembles a bulleted collection of syllogisms
The third refutation really became tedious, and I did not finish it. In the first two refutations, Theodore was sarcastic and quite unkind in his presentation, which may not be too uncommon but was off-putting.
His arguments seemed sound as a defense of the reverence of the icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and other Saints of the Church. The denial of icons is tantamount to a denial of the incarnation - if Christ is circumscribed in the flesh he has an image, which can be reproduced.
Reverence is not the same as adoration, which alone is due to the Trinity in essence. Reverence is due, however, to all things that are holy and their images, which pass that reverence on to their prototypes.
Throughout the text he may depend upon the arguments of a predecessor in the iconoclastic controversy like St. John of Damascus, but he explicitly refers more often to the Cappadocian Fathers as authorities backing up his view.
All three sort of have the characteristic of a back and forth between a heretic and an orthodox speaker. The first treatise is more of a straightforward essay, whereas the second is more of a dialogue, and the third resembles a bulleted collection of syllogisms
The third refutation really became tedious, and I did not finish it. In the first two refutations, Theodore was sarcastic and quite unkind in his presentation, which may not be too uncommon but was off-putting.
His arguments seemed sound as a defense of the reverence of the icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and other Saints of the Church. The denial of icons is tantamount to a denial of the incarnation - if Christ is circumscribed in the flesh he has an image, which can be reproduced.
Reverence is not the same as adoration, which alone is due to the Trinity in essence. Reverence is due, however, to all things that are holy and their images, which pass that reverence on to their prototypes.
Throughout the text he may depend upon the arguments of a predecessor in the iconoclastic controversy like St. John of Damascus, but he explicitly refers more often to the Cappadocian Fathers as authorities backing up his view.
July 25, 2016
This book is a sharpened update of St John of Damascus’s treatises on icons. In many ways it is preferable. The core of St Theodore’s argument hinges on the relationship between image and prototype. We can set up the argument this way:
P1: If something is a prototype, then it can be imaged.
Obviously, and quite brilliantly, Theodore is using St Basil’s very argument for the Holy Spirit, meaning if Theodore’s structure is wrong, so is Basil’s. This seems a very high price to pay.
St Theodore the Studite
Theodore is correct that while it is true that the divine nature qua nature can’t be circumscribed, that point is irrelevant per the Incarnation. Christ had the divine nature but was himself circumscribed. But does it follow, however, that
P2: Therefore, imaging Christ on wood is okay?
That's the key conclusion and most of the battle hinges back on P1.
However, Theodore’s opponents aren’t quite the same as iconoclasts today. Earlier iconoclasts could allow for icons but only rejected veneration. Reformed deny both.
Conclusion:
How does this fare with Damascene's work? It is sharper and shorter.
P1: If something is a prototype, then it can be imaged.
Obviously, and quite brilliantly, Theodore is using St Basil’s very argument for the Holy Spirit, meaning if Theodore’s structure is wrong, so is Basil’s. This seems a very high price to pay.
St Theodore the Studite
Theodore is correct that while it is true that the divine nature qua nature can’t be circumscribed, that point is irrelevant per the Incarnation. Christ had the divine nature but was himself circumscribed. But does it follow, however, that
P2: Therefore, imaging Christ on wood is okay?
That's the key conclusion and most of the battle hinges back on P1.
However, Theodore’s opponents aren’t quite the same as iconoclasts today. Earlier iconoclasts could allow for icons but only rejected veneration. Reformed deny both.
Conclusion:
How does this fare with Damascene's work? It is sharper and shorter.
March 25, 2022
An interesting book, but more helpful for people who struggle with orthodox iconography which I never really did.
You will read the words "uncircumscribable" and "circumscribable" an awful lot, but it is a thorough refutation of the inconoclastic heretics that plagued the church in the build up to the 7th ecumenical council and the triumph of Orthodoxy.
The interesting thing about reading patristics is that it really shatters the myth that Christianity is a religion for illiterate goatherders. The people who wrote books like this back in the 8th century clearly had a thorough grounding in logic and philosophy.
You will read the words "uncircumscribable" and "circumscribable" an awful lot, but it is a thorough refutation of the inconoclastic heretics that plagued the church in the build up to the 7th ecumenical council and the triumph of Orthodoxy.
The interesting thing about reading patristics is that it really shatters the myth that Christianity is a religion for illiterate goatherders. The people who wrote books like this back in the 8th century clearly had a thorough grounding in logic and philosophy.
August 2, 2024
“For what person with any sense does not understand the difference between an idol and an icon? That the one is darkness, and the other light? That the one is deceptive, the other infallible? That the one belongs to polytheism, but the other is the clearest evidence of the divine economy?” Pg.27
“But here we have saints who are venerable and glorious, because they have earned honor by the blood of martyrdom or by a holy way of life.” Pg.38
“Worship is unique, and belongs to God alone; but other kinds of veneration belong to others. We venerate kings and rulers, serveants venerate their masters, children venerate their parents: but not as gods.” Pg.38
“But here we have saints who are venerable and glorious, because they have earned honor by the blood of martyrdom or by a holy way of life.” Pg.38
“Worship is unique, and belongs to God alone; but other kinds of veneration belong to others. We venerate kings and rulers, serveants venerate their masters, children venerate their parents: but not as gods.” Pg.38
October 26, 2022
This book is composed of three refutations - I can't recommend reading them all at once. They are pretty much all the same, but written in slightly different deliveries. Maybe just read one and then read another if you ever find yourself in the mood for holy icon discourse again.
April 7, 2024
Very witty
Iconoclasm debunked
Triumph of Orthodoxy ☦️
Iconoclasm debunked
Triumph of Orthodoxy ☦️
November 20, 2022
Amidst what I believe to be juvenile ways and means of arguing a point, I arrived at a thought- I’m not sure if this controversy was ever settled conclusively.
October 19, 2025
Coming back to expand on my review a little bit.
I'm a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity, and the number one question among inquirers and Protestants is undoubtedly the practice of using icons to aid in prayer and commune with Saints and Christ himself.
Without exaggeration, this book answered every question I had and then some. It's very enlightening and uses proper Christology to underpin the argument as to why icons are not just encouraged, but are indispensable to a robust prayer life. We don't pray to Saints for things only Christ can provide, but we can ask those who are in Heaven for intercession and prayer. Since adopting this practice my prayer life has improved immensely. I have more connection with God since adopting this practice and through experience, I find the argumentation of this book to be theologically sound.
The Biblical arguments are in favor of icons because if they are a second commandment violation, then it would make no sense for God to command the Israelites to adorn the ark with Cherubim, or ask Moses to raise the bronze serpent in the desert. The Iconoclast argument shows itself to be contradictory from the start.
If you've ever had questions about icons I highly recommend this book, and if you already have adopted the practice, this book will only help you further your understanding with robust argumentation and sound theology.
I'm a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity, and the number one question among inquirers and Protestants is undoubtedly the practice of using icons to aid in prayer and commune with Saints and Christ himself.
Without exaggeration, this book answered every question I had and then some. It's very enlightening and uses proper Christology to underpin the argument as to why icons are not just encouraged, but are indispensable to a robust prayer life. We don't pray to Saints for things only Christ can provide, but we can ask those who are in Heaven for intercession and prayer. Since adopting this practice my prayer life has improved immensely. I have more connection with God since adopting this practice and through experience, I find the argumentation of this book to be theologically sound.
The Biblical arguments are in favor of icons because if they are a second commandment violation, then it would make no sense for God to command the Israelites to adorn the ark with Cherubim, or ask Moses to raise the bronze serpent in the desert. The Iconoclast argument shows itself to be contradictory from the start.
If you've ever had questions about icons I highly recommend this book, and if you already have adopted the practice, this book will only help you further your understanding with robust argumentation and sound theology.
September 15, 2014
O saintly Theodore / Hammer of Iconoclasts!
In these three Treatises / you hold forth the Fathers' truth!
That blessed icons / ought be held and reverenced
For Christ in the Flesh / is of one Hypostasis
And His two natures thereby rendered visible
Defending blessed icons / you prepared the Triumph
of the Holy Faith / Catholic and Orthodox
Whom we venerate in icons / you know see from face to face
In Heavenly and Beatific Vision / Amen
In these three Treatises / you hold forth the Fathers' truth!
That blessed icons / ought be held and reverenced
For Christ in the Flesh / is of one Hypostasis
And His two natures thereby rendered visible
Defending blessed icons / you prepared the Triumph
of the Holy Faith / Catholic and Orthodox
Whom we venerate in icons / you know see from face to face
In Heavenly and Beatific Vision / Amen
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews