Veneration of Icons of the Father in the Orthodox Christian Tradition
Justified from the Scriptures, Liturgy, and the Fathers
Chapters:
- “No Man Hath Seen the Father”
a. The Sight of God in the Bible
b. The Essence-Energies Distinction - Daniel 7
a. Who is the Son of Man?
b. The Patristic Consensus on Daniel 7
c. The Ancient of Days: An Essential Title, Not a Hypostatic Title - Historical Icons of the Father
a. Icons from Antiquity to the Modern Day
b. Icons on the Liturgical Calendar and Miracles
c. Saint Alexander of Svir
d. Saint Andrew Rublev - The Patristic Criteria
a. Fathers in Favor of Icons of the Father
b. Fathers Opposed to Icons of the Father - Councils and Icons of the Father
a. The 1551 Stoglav Synod
b. The 1667 Synod of Moscow
c. The 1776 Synod of Constantinople
d. The Seventh Ecumenical Council - Conclusion
1: No Man Hath Seen the Father
a: The Sight of God in the Bible
The Scriptures repeatedly say that no man has seen God at any time, as it is written in Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18.
Exodus 33:20 - “And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”
John 1:18 - “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
John 6:46 - Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Nevertheless, we have indeed seen Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God. How can the Scriptures speak of never having seen God if we have indeed seen Him? Many people explain this perceived discrepancy by saying that the Scriptures refer to the Father as being unseen because He, the Father, did not incarnate in the flesh. The Lord Himself seems to confirm this, as He states on multiple occasions that it is the Father who no man has seen at any time. However, this interpretation is incomplete, for man had seen Christ face to face even before His incarnation, as we see in Genesis 32, where the Prophet Jacob wrestled the Angel of the Lord.
Genesis 32:30 - “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
What do we have here? The unfleshed Son of God depicted as a man? Our Orthodox Church has never had an issue depicting God prior to His incarnation, so why do many still find it necessary to defend iconography by the incarnation?
It is not without good cause. Most defenses of iconography happened due to the attacks on iconography from Muslims. They could not conceive of something immaterial being depicted as though it were matter, and so the defenders of the holy icons defaulted to speaking on the depiction of matter. Thus goes the popular quote of Saint John of Damascus¹:
“I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take his abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter.”
But as the prevailing necessity of polemics against Islam faded, so too did arise iconography that did not exactly conform to those same polemics. For example, we can see in icons of the Baptism of Christ the descent of the Holy Ghost.
Far be it from us to dare to say the Holy Ghost incarnated or took on flesh as a dove or composed Himself of matter, thus permitting His depiction. No, instead, we can freely admit that the Holy Ghost is depicted according to the manner in which He has been seen. He took on a form; He manifested Himself as a Theophany. This is not matter, but rather a manifestation. Whereas Christ appeared to us in the New Testament as flesh and blood, the Holy Ghost appeared to us as a manifestation of God’s uncreated energies. The form that He took speaks to the unspeakable; it makes comprehensible what mankind could not comprehend by normal means. We don’t know what the “True Form” (the hypostasis) of the Holy Ghost looks like; we only know what He dispensed to allow us to see. He also took the form of “tongues of flame” resting upon the Apostles on the occasion of the Fifty-Feast (Pentecost).
This is the same as Christ’s manifestations in the Old Testament, whether it be as an “Angel of the Lord” who wrestled the Prophet Jacob, or as the Burning Bush through which the Lord spoke to the Prophet Moses. In every case, God is seen, but not as matter. It is not “God Himself” who is seen, but the glory of the Lord. The depiction of these manifestations does not conform to the earliest arguments in defense of iconography. Nevertheless, it is an acceptable and venerable tradition in our Holy Orthodox Church, as is attested to by many miracle-working icons of the same kind.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that whatever has been seen may be depicted. Saint John of Damascus says this himself, “I make an image of the God whom I see.” If we could see God as a manifestation or as a vision, but not as matter, then it would be acceptable to depict Him. This freely applies to the Son and the Holy Ghost but also to the Father. As it happens, we have seen the Father, not in His hypostasis, but as a manifestation. He appeared in the form of a man in Daniel 7. This will be discussed further in the next chapter. For now, we will return to the words of the Lord, who said, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” This applies to the hypostasis of the Father, not to manifestations.
b. The Essence-Energies Distinction
The Old Testament theophanies were all types, which is to say, they were all foreshadowings of things to come and/or things beyond our means to understand. Were we to bear them in their full capacity, we would surely be undone. As it is written, “for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20). This is the Lord speaking about His essence. The essence is the general being or “is-ness.” Hypostasis is the particular of the general, particularized by certain properties that make it distinct from others of the same kind. God’s Essence (Nature) is Divine. It is naturally incomprehensible, infinitely above man, and unapproachable. The Father exists in the divine nature only and not in human nature. After the incarnation, Christ exists in two natures: human and divine. It is because of this that we can see Him in the flesh as a man because man is comprehensible and approachable to men. Before the incarnation, He did not exist in human nature but was only divine.
When Christ God says that no man can see His face and live, He is speaking of His divine hypostasis. That is why He shows His “back parts” (Ex 33:23) to Moses instead. God is speaking metaphorically, for the Lord, before His incarnation, did not have body parts and was not composed. Instead, the “back parts” of God refer to His divine energies, which can also be understood as His operations or manifestations in the world. This way of speaking is inconsistently applied in the Scriptures, which is why the Church interprets them for us. When Jacob says, “I have seen God face to face” (Gn 32:30), he means seeing the face of the manifestation, not the divine hypostasis. When Christ says, “No man hath seen God at any time” (Jn 1:18), He means no man has seen the divine essence of God. This is precisely what Saint Stephen saw when he beheld Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father.
Acts 7:55–56 - “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
Are we to imagine that he hallucinated the event? Or should we instead believe that he saw the manifestation of the Father?
All of the manifestations were God’s divine energies, not only the Angel of the Lord but also the Burning Bush, the Tongues of Flames, the Lamb of God, the Commander of the Army of the Lord, and the Ancient of Days. Even to this day, it remains that no man has seen God’s “face” (essence) at any time, and no man will ever see the Father or the Holy Ghost save by means of manifestations that He dispenses to us.
Now, one thing ought to be clarified: Energy is proper to essence, not to the hypostasis. So, while we speak of the manifestation of the Son in the Burning Bush or the manifestation of the Holy Ghost as a dove, it should not be understood that we speak of the Son’s energies and the Holy Ghost’s energies. These are the energies of the Holy Trinity that we receive in a multitude of ways, some of these being manifestations of the Son and some of these being manifestations of the Holy Ghost. As we will see, there are also manifestations of the Father, but those manifestations are an operation of the Holy Trinity.
2: The Vision of the Prophet Daniel
In the Book of Daniel chapter 7, the namesake prophet sees a vision of the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, a kingdom, and decreed that all nations and people should serve Him into eternity.
Is it not clear that this is a vision of the Lord Jesus Christ approaching God the Father and receiving all that the Father has? But let’s not depend on speculation; we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a vision of the Father.
a. Who is the Son of Man?
Any Christian mildly familiar with the Bible will immediately recognize this messianic title: Son of Man.
Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, He who had been prophesied from before the ages.
Mark 14:61–62 - “But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, ‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’”
The purpose of the coming of the Son of Man was to save all mankind.
Luke 19:9-10 - “And Jesus said unto him, ‘This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.’”
He foretells of His own Crucifixion.
Matthew 12:40 - “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
I will not exhaust you with each full set of verses; even the above was unnecessary. Everyone with the ears to hear knows that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man, spoken of in the same way both in the Old Testament and the New. Nevertheless, in order to be complete, here is a list of times wherein the Lord Jesus the Messiah is referred to as the Son of Man:
- Matthew 8:20
- Matthew 11:19
- Matthew 24:27
- Matthew 25:31
- Mark 2:10
- Mark 8:31,38
- Mark 9:9,12
- Mark 14:21
- Luke 7:34
- Luke 9:58
- Luke 17:24
- John 3:13
- John 5:27
- John 6:62
b. The Patristic Consensus on Daniel 7
The Church Fathers are almost universal in saying that the vision of the Prophet Daniel shows the Son approaching the Father.
In his commentary on Daniel, Saint John Chrysostom says this prophet “was the first and only one to see the Father and the Son, as if in a vision” ²
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, in his treatise against Novation, says that the Ancient of Days is “the Father that sitteth upon the throne.” ³
Saint Theophylact of Ohrid directly states that Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the Son of Man approaching the Father in the vision of Daniel. In his commentary on Matthew⁴, he says: “Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming upon the clouds of heaven. He is speaking to them from the prophecy of Daniel, who said, ‘I saw one coming as the Son of Man upon the clouds’ (Daniel 7:13). For since they thought that He was deluded, as He appeared to them in humble form, He said, ‘You shall see Me then coming in power and seated with the Father.’ ‘Power’ here means that of the Father, and the Son of Man will be coming not from earth but from heaven.”
Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his canonical commentary entitled “The Rudder,” that “it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days.” ⁵
The above-mentioned saints are not the totality of the patristic commentary on the matter but were specifically chosen because of their diversity both in place and in time: A Latin Father and three Greek saints separated by multiple centuries. This is done to show the universality of the interpretation and its ability to last in each generation. Nevertheless, we shall also post a list of saints and their works in which they speak the same:
- Saint Hippolytus of Rome (+236)⁶
- Saint Cyprian of Carthage (+225)
- Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)⁷
- Saint John Chrysostom (+407)
- Saint John of Damascus (+749)⁸
- Blessed Theophylact of Ohrid (+1108)⁹
- Saint Gregory Palamas (+1357)²⁰
- Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite (+1809)
Many have conjured the idea that the Ancient of Days in the Book of Daniel is the Son. This is likely due to a misunderstanding where they conflate the description of the Son in Revelation with the One who bears that title in Daniel, who is the Father.
Can a theologian be found in any age or any land who says the Ancient of Days in the vision of Daniel is the Son? Not explicitly, however, one commentary from Saint Ambrose¹⁰ would seem to imply that He is the Son. In this reference, however, it is unclear if he is speaking of God in general or if he is speaking of the hypostatic identity of the Son.
Beware he who says he learned it “from the Saints,” but who the Saints are or in which of their particular treatises they have laid down this teaching he cannot say.
c. The Ancient of Days: An Essential Title, Not a Hypostatic Title
One does not need to labor long to find justification for the belief that the Ancient of Days is the Son. It is obviously exegeted from the Revelation to Saint John the Theologian.
Revelation 1:13–14 - “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;”
Many Saints refer to the Ancient of Days as being the Son when speaking of the Apocalypse of Saint John. We have a long-standing tradition of depicting the Son in Holy icons with the title “Ancient of Days,” and our liturgical texts refer to the Ancient of Days as being the Son, such as in the Vespers, Tone 5 for 8 February according to the Menaion.¹¹
“The Ancient of days, having become a babe, is borne into the temple by the Virgin Mother, fulfilling the prescription of His own law; and, receiving Him, Symeon said: ‘Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, O Holy One!’”
As stated above, this may be the reason why some are confused by the use of the title “Ancient of Days” in the Book of Daniel, when it undoubtedly refers to the Father. However, there is no need for confusion when the whole tradition of the Church is taken into account. We can see that the title “Ancient of Days” pertains to the divine essence, which means it applies equally to the Three of the Holy Trinity. This can be seen in the works of the aforementioned Church Fathers, exegeting Daniel, and furthermore by our liturgical texts, which also portray the Vision in Daniel as Christ approaching the Father, which would thereby identify Him also with the title “Ancient of Days.”
The hymn in question is from The Octoechoes for Sunday, Tone 5, Midnight Office Canon to the Holy and Life Creating Trinity, Ode 4¹² and says:
“Daniel was initiated into the mystery of the threefold splendour of the one Dominion when he beheld Christ the Judge going unto the Father while the Spirit revealed the vision.”
Believing this hymn would have us confess that the Ancient of Days mentioned in Daniel 7 is the Father since it was He who was approached. So the Ancient of Days is not a title specific to any hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, but rather it is a Divine Title in general and thus could be used to refer to any person of the Trinity, whether it be the Father or the Son. To say that “The Ancient of Days is the Son” is only partially correct and must be said primarily in the context of the Book of Revelation, as the Ancient of Days is the Father in the context of the vision seen in the Book of Daniel.
Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite explicitly says that the Divine Name “Ancient of Days” applies to all persons of the Trinity. Just as the word “Lord” applies to all three persons, so too does “Ancient of Days.” He says¹³:
“Now, this, we have thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere, that always, all the God-becoming Names of God, are celebrated by the Oracles, not partitively, but as applied to the whole and entire and complete and full Godhead, and that all of them are referred impartitively, absolutely, unreservedly, entirely, to all the Entirety of the entirely complete and every Deity.”
It is natural to ask why the Holy Ghost is not ever formally entitled “Ancient of Days,” but there is no need to be concerned about this. It doesn’t need to be said explicitly to be true. We know that no attribute or title could be shared between the Divine Persons unless it applied to all Three. Were it so that the title “Ancient of Days” applied only to the Father and Son, but not the Holy Ghost, we would be called to account for the very meaning of “Ancient of Days” and wonder why it should apply to Two and not the Third. The Holy Ghost is in no way inferior to the Father and Son and so must share all things shared between them both. This is part of how we know that the double-procession (filioque) is false, for it would diminish the Holy Ghost to suggest that the Father and Son possess the attribute of generating by proceeding but that the Holy Ghost does not. Alternatively, it would exalt the Father and the Son into two different essences and two different Gods if both could originate within the Trinity. Like the attributes, the Divine Names follow that formula. It would diminish the Holy Ghost not to bear that title while the Father and the Son do.
3: Historical Icons of the Father
So far, we have established that what has been seen should be depicted and that the Father has been seen in manifestations but not in His hypostasis. Naturally, our iconographic tradition ought to reflect this. We should be able to find icons of the Father persisting throughout the ages. This is precisely what we see.
a. Icons from Antiquity to the Modern Day
Depicting the Father has been an Orthodox tradition since before the schism of the Latins, as we see in the example of the Utrecht Psalter¹⁴ dating to 820s-840s, for Psalm 109 LXX.
Not to be outdone by the Latin West, the Greek East was producing its own icons depicting the Father. In a 9th-century manuscript containing the writings of Saint John of Damascus, a depiction of the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen is written into the margins of the text, which shows Christ sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
Aelfwine, Abbot of New Minster, composed a prayerbook sometime before 1057 containing a unique depiction of the Trinity with the Birthgiver of God flanking Christ to His right and the Holy Ghost overshadowing her as she carries the Christ-child. Depicted below Christ’s feet is the devil being consumed by the maw of Hades. Judas and Arius are languishing at the bottom.
The Catholicon of the Pantokrator Monastery at Mount Athos bears an icon of the Father with the inscription “Ὁ ΑΝΑΡΧΟC ΠΑΤΗΡ” (O Anarchos Pater) (Beginningless Father)
The Greek and Russian traditions of Paternal iconography differ in a few obvious ways. Greek icons of the Father very often depict Him with a Triangle Halo, although some others will depict Him exactly as they depict the Son.
The Trinity icon here is painted on the ceiling of the entrance to Vatopedi Monastery.
Icons of the Father in the Russian tradition come in many styles, but you can usually identify them by the Eight-Pointed Halo. The Father will usually be entitled “Господь Саваоф” (Gospod Savaoth) (Lord of Hosts or Lord of Sabaoth) and will either be depicted with Christ at His right hand, as in the previous icons or will have the Christ-child seated in His lap in the so-called “Paternity” or “Fatherhood” icons.
Russia is so fond of the Fatherhood icon that they continue to paint them on their modern cathedrals.
Very often, in the Russian tradition, the Trinity will be included in a small window at the top of an icon. It leaves little to the imagination what is being depicted.
In other icons of the Russian tradition, the main portion of the icon will depict Christ, while the Father is depicted in the Heavens above.
Another common icon of the Russian tradition is the All-Seeing Eye, first appearing in the 19th century.
As we can see, icons of the Father are not an aberration in the Orthodox world but are common and even expected. You can hardly find a parish that doesn’t have one. From the biggest cathedrals to the most eminent monasteries, an icon of the Father exists.
b. Icons on the Liturgical Calendar and Miracles
In order to see the Church’s approval of icons of the Father more clearly, we can consult the Liturgical calendar. There, you will find dozens of icons depicting God the Father. Almost all of these icons are icons of the Mother of God. Therefore, we will only show a few and give a longer list afterward.
The “Reigning” icon of the Mother of God is said to be miraculous, disappearing after it aided the Russian army in defeating Napoleon and reappearing at the moment of the abdication of Emperor Saint Nicholas II.
The Port Arthur icon was painted with exactitude by the instruction of the Mother of God, the sailor who wrote it depicting only what was shown before his face.
The Myrrh Streaming “Kursk Root” icon of the Mother of God “of the Sign” is known from its origins when it was first burned and later cut to pieces by invading Tatars, but miraculously repaired itself. The image of the Lord of Hosts was added in 1597.
Below is a list of other icons of the Birthgiver of God with God the Father depicted on them:
- “Dalmatian” (1646) Icon of the Mother of God (28 Feb OC / 15 Feb NC)
- The Annunciation-Ustiug (1290) Icon of the Mother of God (21 Jul OC / 8 Jul NC)
- “It is Truly Meet” Icon of the Mother of God (24 Jun OC / 11 Jun NC)
- “The Joy of All Who Sorrow” Icon of the Mother of God (5 Aug OC / 23 Jul NC)
- “The Unburnt Bush” Icon of the Mother of God (17 Sept OC / 4 Sept NC)
- Kiev-Sophia (Wisdom) Icon of the Mother of God (21 Sept OC / 8 Sept NC)
c. Saint Alexander of Svir
An extraordinary event in our hagiographical tradition occurred in the life of Saint Alexander of Svir. I cannot underscore how unprecedented this is, as it has never happened in the entire history of our Saints up until this point, nor has it ever happened again.
Twenty-three years after settling in the desert to pursue the ascetic life, Saint Alexander of Svir was visited by three men in bright clothes, illuminated by heavenly glory “more than the sun.” From their lips, the saint heard the command: “Beloved, as thou seest Him speaking to thee in Three Persons, build a Church in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Consubstantial Trinity… I leave My peace to thee, and I will give My peace to thee.”
Saint Alexander was indeed convinced that the Living God appeared to him, as he subsequently built a chapel to the Holy Trinity at the place of His visitation.
This event leaves a devout reader completely speechless and questioning. Was this truly the Holy Trinity, or were three angels typifying the Holy Trinity? Neither the Lord nor the Angels can tell a lie, and the three men in this Life said, “As thou seest Him speaking to thee in Three Persons.” There is little other explanation than that this was the Triune Godhead.
So does that mean the Holy Ghost appeared as a man, even as the Father and the Son had before? It is not as though this is beyond the power of He Who Inspires.
Does this lay a precedent for depicting the Holy Trinity in three persons? Some would say so, as we will see in the next section. Nevertheless, I can only speculate concerning this event and yield to the Church’s commemoration.
d. Saint Andrew Rublev
Saint Andrew Rublev’s Trinity is perhaps the most well-known icon of the Trinity in the Orthodox world, and those who oppose icons of the Father view the Rublev Trinity as the only acceptable (form of the) icon of the Holy Trinity.
The icon is based on the story of the Hospitality of Abraham with a few tweaks. Namely, the Forefather Abraham and his wife Sarah are removed from the icon, and the depicted figures are not shown eating but are instead shown conversing.
Looking at the icon, a well-trained eye can see that the center angel is shown wearing the same colors of robes as Christ is normatively depicted wearing. Therefore, the popular opinion is that the icon depicts the pre-incarnate Christ flanked by two angels, and the presence of the three figures only typifies the Holy Trinity by their threeness. However, I am of the opinion that our liturgics testify to something else: that the three angels are energetic manifestations of the Tri-Hypostatic God.
Let’s look at the Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.¹⁶
“Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three Sunned God who alone hath dominion.”
And again, the Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6.¹⁷
“As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men.”
The testimony suggests that each of the Three are being manifested as individuals rather than angels being present to represent the Three. Note, as stated before, that the energies pertain to the essence and not to the hypostasis, so the claim that the Three are manifested is not suggesting that each of the Three manifested hypostatic energies (lest we divide the Trinity), but rather that the Triune God manifested three unique manifestations. These are energetic manifestations that are proper to the whole Trinity.
The identity of the three figures has been debated by scholars and clergy alike, with both classes on both sides. Some say that the Father is in the middle; others say the Father is depicted to the viewer’s left.
Among those supporting the belief that the Rublev Trinity depicts the Father in the center are¹⁸:
- Art historian Count Yuri Alexandrovich Olsufiev (+1938)
- Art historian Dmitry Vlasyevich Ainalov (+1939)
- Art critic and philosopher Nikolay Mikhailovich Tarabukin (+1956)
- Spiritual writer Valentina Alexandrovna Zander (+1989)
- Doctor of Art History Gerold Ivanovich Vzdornov
- Archpriest Alexander Andreevich Vetelev (+1976)
Among those who believe the Father is to the viewer’s left are:
- Medieval art researcher Nikolay Vladimirovich Malitsky (+1938)
- Russian/Byzantine art specialist Viktor Nikitich Lazarev (+1976)
- Art critic Mikhail Vladimirovich Alpatov (+1986)
- Monastic iconographer Gregory Krug (+1969)
- Lay iconographer Leonid Aleksandrovich Uspensky (+1987)
- Lay theologian Vladimir Lossky (+1958)
In any case, the idea of the Trinity being depicted is undisputed. If we can depict the Angels as a type of the Trinity, what would preclude us from depicting the Ancient of Days as a type of the Father? What prevents us from depicting the Father in one case but not in the case of Saint Andrew Rublev? I believe those who seek to speak against icons of the Father are pushing a double standard. If they were consistent, they would either support icons of the Father or oppose the Rublev Trinity.
I will add a note about the above-mentioned Fr. Gregory Krug. In his book, “Thoughts About the Icon,” he dedicates a chapter to icons of the Father entitled “On the Image of God the Father in the Orthodox Church.” In it, he argues that a fast should be imposed upon icons of God the Father in order to return our iconographic theology back to the premise of the incarnation. He does state in the same chapter that he does not deny the essential possibility of icons of the Father, yet he believes it should be prohibited as a teaching tool. He writes²⁸:
“The first and main reason for such a limitation, it seems, was the need to firmly establish the foundation on which the veneration of icons rests. The foundation established by the Seventh Ecumenical Council is the dogma of the Incarnation. This is the foundation and confirmation of sacred images: God, indescribable as Divinity, became describable as flesh, and since the invisible Divinity became visible and tangible flesh, it can be depicted and described. The image of Christ — the imprinted hypostasis — unites two natures, and this incarnation of God is for us the foundation of the icon, as it were, the icon of icons. Just as a stone placed at the head of the corner brings together two walls of a building, Christ, the incarnate Word, unites in Himself two unmerged hypostases: the indescribable Divinity and the describable humanity. And in this sense, the veneration of icons became possible only by Christ and through Christ, and there can be no other basis. The image of the God-man Christ became a sign of the Church’s victory and the foundation that the Savior Himself gave to the Church by imprinting His image on the veil. And the Fathers of the Church, who defended the veneration of icons, invariably affirm this unshakable foundation with their works. The icon of God the Father is conceivable in the light of the icon of Christ. In the consciousness of believers, a kind of bifurcation could occur, the image of Christ was doubled by the image of God the Father. The prohibition to depict God the Father resembles the prohibition of the Old Testament to create sacred images. In both cases, this prohibition does not deny the possibility of an image in its very essence, but imposes a prohibition on sacred images, similar to the prohibitions of Lent regarding foods. Lent does not cancel the partaking of foods in essence, but for a time abstains from them. And just as in the Old Testament the image of the Cherubim in the Tabernacle of the Covenant was an exhaustion of the prohibition of sacred images, so in the New Testament Church the custom of placing images of God the Father on icons, which had firmly entered into church life, has already deprived the prohibition of its immutable character, made it as if explained, not completely impenetrable. These regulations began to resemble a curtain that does not allow the light to penetrate in full force, but is not a source of complete darkness.”
4. The Patristic Criteria
Our Orthodox faith is not established on rationalism but on revelation. God reveals His eternal truths to us in a myriad of ways, including by means of patristic consensus. The Lord inspires His saints, though not always on every point. Some fall into their excesses, but whatever is said in common among all or almost all of the saints can be assured to be the certain truth. God is continually guiding the whole body of His Church towards all truth. When the Church canonizes someone, their theology is brought into the Church’s collective consciousness, and they are weighed with the rest of the Saints for instruction in the Orthodox faith. Thus, it is necessary to consult the patristic corpus on every point, including concerning the depiction of the Father in holy icons.
The sinner that I am, I could not possibly gather or read through all the Saints who spoke on the depiction of the Father, as the exigencies of my life preclude me from embarking on this endeavor fully. For that reason, I apologize and invite anyone who reads this article to send me the writings of the Saints on this matter, whether in favor or opposed, so that I can compile a complete list. Until then, I know very few saints speak on this, but we will look at their words equally.
a. Fathers in Favor of Icons of the Father
We already spoke of Saint Andrew Rublev based only on the existence of his Rublev Trinity, but multiple saints explicitly wrote in favor of depicting God the Father.
Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite says in the Rudder¹⁹ that the Seventh Council anathematizes those who refuse to accept depictions of visions of the Divine Word and infers that “even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days.”
Saint Demetrius of Rostov says in his Brief Questions about Faith³¹ that the Father is not depicted due to His incorporeality, but He may be depicted in the form by which He chose to reveal Himself. He says “Is the Father as He is depicted in icons: an old man with a beard? — In no way. If the mind inherent in our soul cannot be depicted, then even more so God, who created us, cannot be depicted in colors in a visible image. But since He appears in this form to the prophets and was called by them the Ancient of Days, then the Holy Church, by common consent, has legalized at the Holy Councils to depict Him thus, to honor and recognize Him in the form of an elder, the Ancient of Days, that is, eternal and beginningless, having neither beginning nor end of His days.”
Take notice of the fact that Saint Demetrius says the Church has consented to depict the Father, even after the 1667 Synod of Moscow which is purported to have prohibited such images (this synod will be discussed later). He acknowledges that the Father is depicted as an old man.
Saint Macarius of Moscow also excommunicated Ivan Viskovaty for three years for denying the permissibility of icons of Father, saying we can depict His appearance in prophetic visions just as we depict Christ in His pre-incarnate Theophanies.²¹
Saint Macarius not only excommunicated Ivan, but he was also the one who summoned Ivan to the Church court and demanded a statement from him to determine the Orthodoxy of his views.²²
Saint John the Wonderworker possessed an icon of the Father in his office up to the time of his repose. It has been left there since his election in Heaven.
b. Fathers Opposed to Icons of the Father
Saint John of Damascus
Saint John of Damascus was already discussed above, speaking against icons of the Father in context with his polemics against Islam and the necessity to establish his iconographic theology on the incarnation.
There is one thing I’d like to speak about again concerning Saint John; he admits we depict what has been seen. “I make an image of the God who I see.” ¹ In this short statement, he fully vindicates icons of the Father despite his written opposition to them. For as shown many times before, in concert with other Saints and our Church’s Liturgics, the Father has been seen in manifestations and visions, once in the vision of Daniel and once in the vision of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. Furthermore, the Shining Light of Damascus does not speak about depictions of the Holy Ghost, despite Him having also been seen in the Baptism of Christ and the Fifty-Feast. Nor does he at all discuss the potential of depicting the pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ despite the fact that he does discuss the Burning Bush as being an image of the Mother of God, bearing the all-consuming fire of God without being burned.
But we shall display his words out of reverence to him.
“I do not draw an image of the immortal Godhead , but I paint the image of God who became visible in the flesh, for if it is impossible to make a representation of a spirit, how much more impossible is it to depict the God who gives life to the spirit?”¹
And more explicitly, in another work, he says²⁹,
“For if we were to make an image of the invisible God, we would really sin; for it is impossible to depict one who is incorporeal and formless, invisible and uncircumscribable. And again: if we were to make images of human beings and regard them and venerate them as gods, we would be truly sacrilegious. But we do none of these things. For if we make an image of God who in his ineffable goodness became incarnate and was seen upon earth in the flesh, and lived among humans, and assumed the nature and density and form and color of flesh, we do not go astray.”
Multiple times in his treatises on Divine Images, he condemns the depiction of the incorporeal God as sacrilegious and sinful. This must be taken to mean the depiction of God’s nature, for in another section of the same treatises³⁰, he describes the theophanies of the Old Testament as “images” (although he makes no mention of the reproduction of these images in the New Testament Church).
“Abraham did not see God’s nature (‘for no one has ever seen God’), but the image of God and falling down he venerated him.”
Many would take his words at face value and assume that they preclude the depiction of the Father, but it may be possible that he only meant the depiction of nature, which icons of the Father are not claiming to be. Nevertheless, we can assume fairly that his repeated tying of iconography to the incarnation implies that he would also stand against depictions of visions and manifestations even if they had actually been seen.
“Of old, God the incorporeal and formless was never depicted, but now that God has been seen in the flesh and has asso-ciated with human kind, I depict what I have seen of God.”¹
Despite his great contributions to iconographic theology, especially being one of the first to write long treatises in defense of it, our Church takes up the whole life of the Church and its people in testifying to its theology. As the old adage goes, lex orandi, lex credendi, The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief. The Orthodox Church historically always endorsed, composed, and prayed in justification of icons of the Father, and thus, we must conclude that icons of the Father are not an aberration but a blessed tradition of our Church.
Pope Gregory II
In a letter to Emperor Leo II the Isaurian, which is included in the Acts of the Seventh Council, Pope Gregory II states:
“Why do we not delineate and paint the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because we have not seen and known Him, and it is impossible to delineate and paint the divine nature. And if we had beheld and known Him, as we have His Son, we would have delineated and painted Him also in order for you (Leo) to call His figure also an idol!”
This is the earliest patristic writer to explicitly mention images of God the Father. He opposes it on one standard: the depiction of the divine nature. Yet it had been said many times before that icons of the Father do not intend to depict nature but only visions and manifestations. Whether any of the saints opposed depictions of the visions and theophanies has yet to be seen. Perhaps there exists one or a few who permitted depictions of the theophanies but, for pastoral reasons, did not permit the depiction of the theophany of the Father.
Saint Nicodemus comments on Pope Gregory’s words, saying the same things that have been covered so far¹⁸:
“Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham?”
Saint Nicodemus insists on consistency of logic when it comes to making icons. He says the same thing about the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham: that it clearly depicts the glory of the Holy Trinity and justifies the existence of icons of the Father in other contexts. For him, the icon depicts the sight of the eye and not a substance.
5. Councils and Icons of the Father
Icons of the Father have been discussed in many Councils, though while some think the conciliar tradition is unspeakably opposed to Paternal iconography, we will see below how that belief is unsubstantiated.
a. The 1551 Stoglav Synod
Previously, we spoke about Saint Macarius of Moscow summoning Ivan Viskovaty to trial for his opposition to icons of God the Father. Ivan’s justification was that he felt Russia was being westernized and bringing foreign traditions into the Church. This all happened at the 1551 Stoglav Synod. Another act of this synod was to honor the Rublev Trinity icon as an acceptable and canonically correct way to depict icons of the Holy Trinity²³.
“Icon painters should paint icons from ancient translations, as the Greek icon painters painted, and as Andrew Rublev and other notorious icon painters painted, and sign the Holy Trinity, but do nothing from their own design.”
The council decreed this because Ivan Viskovaty raised suspicion that the Rublev Trinity would make people think Christ took on an angelic nature just as He took on human nature.²⁴ Viskovaty’s false piety led him to attack icons of the Father, both the “New Testament Trinity” and the “Old Testament Trinity,” and he was duly excommunicated. Now, we can see Russia fully embraces icons of the Father with no qualms.
b. The 1667 Synod of Moscow
It is well known and well repeated that the 1667 Synod of Moscow forbade icons of the Father. I could say many things about the 1667 Synod. I could talk about how portions of it have been completely abrogated, I could talk about how it deposed a Saintly Patriarch, or I could talk about how it was presided over by a uniate, but I don’t need to speak about any of that. The 1667 gives permission for icons of the Father to be made.²⁵
“For this reason we command that from now on that vain and inappropriate writing cease. Only in the Apocalypse of St. John is the Father necessarily written in gray hair, because of the visions there.”
Indeed, the synod is very hostile to icons of the Father. Still, nevertheless, it permits them according to the same criteria we have spoken of before: that visions of the Father have been seen and thus may be depicted.
c. The 1776 Synod of Constantinople
The 1776 Synod of Constantinople was presided over by Ecumenical Patriarch Sophronius II of Constantinople. It decreed against icons of the Trinity.
“It has been decreed by the Synod that the icon allegedly of the Trinity is an innovation. It is alien to the Apostolic, Orthodox, Catholic Church and is not accepted by it. It infiltrated the Orthodox Church through the Latins.”
That seems to be the death knell for the iconography of the Father, right? Well, if that’s the path you take, beware of what exactly you’re signing onto. The 1776 Synod not only decreed against icons of the Father, but it also anathematized Saint Athanasius of Paros. When Patriarch Sophronius II was deposed, a new synod was called in 1781 by Patriarch Gabriel IV, which completely overthrew the 1776 synod on all points.²⁶
So, by accepting this council as purportedly Orthodox, you are effectively saying Saint Athanasius should have indeed been anathematized, and Constantinople was wrong to overthrow it. The irony of it is that no Church on Earth accepts this council, yet some people say it preaches Orthodoxy on this topic.
Conceptually, a council can profess the right belief on one topic while getting everything else wrong, but it would stand to reason that this article would be maintained, at the very least, in the Church that decreed it to be so. As it stands, no jurisdiction incorporates the decree against icons of the Father from this synod. This would seem to indicate that the decree was not fit to be maintained because it was wrong. Nevertheless, if it should be so that the 1776 synod of Constantinople was correct about icons of the Father, then those who follow this belief face an uphill battle defending this decree against its own overthrow.
d. The Seventh Ecumenical Council
A common objection to icons of the Father is that the Seventh Ecumenical Council forbids them. Where in the council this decree is found has yet to be discovered. In reality, no such decree exists. Nevertheless, some still oppose icons of the Father based on the Seventh Council.
They say the Second Council of Nicaea speaks about which icons can be made. Indeed, in session one of the Acts, the following icons are saluted:
“Likewise also the venerable images (εἰκόνας) of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the humanity he assumed for our salvation; and of our spotless Lady, the holy Mother of God; and of the angels like God; and of the holy Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and of all the Saints — the sacred images of all these, I salute and venerate”
Notably, this list does not say it permits depictions of the Father. It also doesn’t permit depictions of the Holy Ghost by this decree, even though no one disputes their depiction. But still, the argument has merit. Later in session two, Saint Tarasius receives Synodal approval for this decree:
“and these we venerate with firmly-attached affection, as made in the name of Christ our God, and of our Spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and of the Holy Angels, and of all the Saints, most clearly giving our adoration and faith to the one only true God.”
Again, the Seventh Council appears to be giving a strict list of what may be depicted, and the Father is not on the list. This same list is given twice more afterward.
So, what are we left with? Well, we shouldn’t imagine that this list is as strict as some partisans present. In fact, the Seventh Council does make a comment on depictions of the Holy Ghost.
Turning again to the Rudder, we see Saint Nicodemus record an extract from the Acts not available to us in English yet.
“Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xenaes used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove. whereas, on the other hand, the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs.”
Essentially, Xenaes the Persian said depicting the Holy Ghost as a dove was childish, and the Seventh Council Fathers anathematized him. On what grounds do they have to do so? Because the Holy Ghost has been seen in the form of a dove. Thus, the Seventh Council tacitly approves of depicting the undepictable according to their manifestations in the world and in visions. It is for this reason that we shouldn’t doubt, just as Saint Nicodemus did not doubt, that depictions of the Father are in line with the Seventh Council’s iconographic theology²⁷.
“Embedded in the Acts of the Fifth Session of II Nicaea, but not otherwise preserved, are statements from two late seventh-century Byzantine Churchmen who had interesting things to say in defense of images. Bishop John of Thessalonica is quoted, in the first place, as having said a few quite traditional things. He defended images because they exist only for remembering and honoring those depicted. The images themselves, indeed, are not honored, but instead the servants and friends of God who intercede for people. But then John adds, ‘’We make images of God, that is of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in so far as he was seen upon the earth and talked with men. We paint this not that it [the image] be understood as God by nature . . . we depict the humanity, not the incorporeal divinity.’ John concludes by developing the same argument with respect to angels. Of course they are incorporeal but they appeared many times to men as if corporeal and so that is how they are depicted.”
The above quote proves the premise of the article, as has been stated many times: that we may depict the incorporeal and unseen by forms and manifestations that have been seen. The Father is, by nature, incorporeal and invisible, and yet He has been seen in manifestations. So, there is no contradiction between the Seventh Council and the icons of the Father.
6: Conclusion
Icons of the Father are a venerable and Orthodox tradition. We have shown with certainty that God the Father has been seen in manifestations and visions and that this doesn’t contradict the Scriptures. We have seen that the principles of depicting the Father are the same as depicting the Holy Ghost and the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. We have seen that it is proper to refer to the Father as the Ancient of Days and depict Him as such in our icons. We have seen that icons of the Father have a long and widespread tradition in our Church, existing East and West before the schism of the Latins and being continually justified among the Greeks and Russians for centuries. We have seen that no serious opposition has ever managed to put a stop to the iconography of the Father, and even the strongest advocates against them nonetheless permitted them. Ultimately, I am confident in saying that the acceptability of icons of the Father is, in fact, the Orthodox tradition.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Saint John of Damascus, First Apology Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images
(https://faculty.washington.edu/miceal/Courses/CompLit280/John_of_Damascus.html) - “In Danielem,” PG 56:231–233
- Saint Cyprian of Carthage, “The Treatise Against the Heretic Novation,” ANF, Vol. V, p. 663 (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05/anf05.vii.iii.ii.html)
- Blessed Theophylact of Ohrid, “The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew,” pg 236 (https://web.archive.org/web/20200705143020/http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/matthew_theophilactos.htm)
- Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, “The Rudder,” pgs 420–421 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/orthodox/The_Rudder.pdf)
- Saint Hippolytus of Rome, “Treatise on Christ and Antichrist,” ANF (Ante Nicene Fathers) vol. 5, p. 209” (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html)
- Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lectures,” Lecture XV, NPNF2 (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers), Vol 7, page 110 (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xix.html)
- Saint John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, Treatise III, page 101
- Blessed Theophylact of Ohrid “The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark,” pg 128 (https://archive.org/stream/TheGospelAccordingToSt.Mark/The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Mark_djvu.txt)
- Saint Ambrose of Milan, “Letter 63:5–6,” NPNF, vol. 10, p. 457 (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.toc.html#P8200_2194749)
- Menaion, February 8th Vespers, https://www.ponomar.net/maktabah/MenaionLambertsenFebruary2000/0208.html
- “Μυείται τής μιάς Κυριότητος, τό τριφαές ο Δανιήλ, Χριστόν κριτήν θεασάμενος, πρός τόν Πατέρα ιόντα, καί Πνεύμα τό προφαίνον τήν όρασιν.” (http://users.sch.gr/geioanni/sel-LEITOYRGIKOI_YMNOI/texts/A-OKTOHXOS/Tone5Sun.htm )
- Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, “On the Divine Names,” Chapter 2 (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_03_divine_names.htm#c2)
- The Utrecht Psalter (Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 32), Psalm 109, folio 64v (detail), https://psalter.library.uu.nl/page/136
- Sacra Parallela (Damascenian anthology), Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Greek 923 fol 40r https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525013124/f83.item
- The Octoechos, Volume 1, Tones 1 and 2, page 9 https://www.ponomar.net/data/octoechos_tone1.pdf
- The Octoechos, Volume 2, Tones 3 and 4, page 9 https://www.ponomar.net/data/octoechos_tone3.pdf
- “Towards a clarification of the iconographic interpretation of the “Holy Trinity” by St. Andrew Rublev” by Deacon Malkov Georgy, https://web.archive.org/web/20180602085904/https://bogoslov.ru/text/1752188.html
- Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, “We must note that since the present council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the Church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes, on the contrary, those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the Prophet as the Ancient of Days. Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father ought not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible.”
- Saint Gregory Palamas, On the Annunciation of our Exceedingly Pure Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary
- Цитаты в споре дьяка Висковатого и митрополита Макария по иконописи на Московском Соборе 1553–1554 года https://www.academia.edu/19607730/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5_1553_1554_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0
- Stoglav. Published by D. E. Kozhanchikov. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 128
- STOGLAV THE CATHEDRAL THAT WAS IN MOSCOW UNDER THE GREAT SOVEREIGN TSAR AND GRAND PRINCE IVAN VASILYEVICH (in the summer of 7059)
- “For Viskovaty, the image of Christ in angelic form is tempting: it can be understood in such a way that Christ took on angelic nature in the same way as human, or that the angelic rank is placed above the incarnation.” https://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/440365/
- XV. The Great Moscow Cathedral and the Image of God the Father (Beginning), https://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/440371/
- A. Economidis, “Athanasios the Parian.” Cycladic Studies Society Yearbook 1, 1961, pp. 347–422.
- Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians by Thomas F. X. Noble, https://dokumen.pub/images-iconoclasm-and-the-carolingians-9780812202960.html
- Fr. Gregory Krug, “Thoughts About the Icon,” Chapter 3: On the Image of God the Father in the Orthodox Church. https://nesusvet.narod.ru/ico/books/krug/02.htm
- Saint John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, Treatise III, page 61
- Saint John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, Treatise III, page 102
- Saint Demetrius of Rostov, Brief Questions and Answers about Faith and Other Important Subjects of Knowledge for a Christian, Chapter: The Narrative of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and their Canons. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Dmitrij_Rostovskij/kratkie-voprosy-i-otvety/#sel=207:1,207:86
