| Summary: | The theoretical legacy of John of Damascus still attracts the attention of researchers, as his works had a significant impact not only on the development of the theological discourse of the Eastern and Western Churches, but also on the further development of the theory and practice of the veneration of icons. One of the debatable questions is which theological and philosophical ideas became the structural basis of his apology of images. This article aims to study the theoretical basis of the theology of St. John of Damascus on holy images. The most important structural elements of the theory of the icon, their dogmatic foundation, as well as philosophical and theological ideas that became the basis of the doctrine have been analyzed. It is substantiated that John, based on a thorough philosophical and theological traditions, significantly deepens the theory of image. According to Damascus, images are not only intermediaries that provide a link between the spiritual and the material, the Divine and the human, but also authoritative representatives of the Divine Word, full of grace, which opens the way to salvation. The theologian determines the meaning and veneration of the icon not only by the relationship of similarity between the image and the original, but primarily by its involvement to the existence of the archetype. Such important components of his doctrine of icons as the apology of matter and the justification for the veneration of icons as sacred symbols in which the Divine energies are located are directly related to the truth of the Incarnation. Therefore, the theory of icon veneration of John of Damascus should be considered in the broader context of his Christology, in particular, the dialectical interpretation of the paradoxical essence of the Christological dogma of non-fusion and at the same time the unity of two natures – Divine and human. He relies on the theoretical basis developed by the early Byzantine Fathers of the Church, especially Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, consolidated by the Ecumenical Councils, and developed by theologians of the post-Chalcedonian period. One of the promising areas for further research on this issue is a comparative analysis of the main points of the theology of the icon in John’s doctrine with the provisions of theologians of the post-iconoclastic period – Theodore the Studit and The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople.
|
|---|
