“The Icon as Testimony and Way of Saintliness”

Federico Aguirre
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
Faculty of Theology, Centre for Religious Studies

Introduction
In the late 1970s, very near Notre Dame, at the University of Chicago, School of
Theology, Peter Brown gave a series of lectures on the origin of the cult of saints in late
antiquity. These lectures were collected, slightly retouched and eventually published under
the title The Cult of the Saints. Its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1981). In this text, as its title indicates, Brown addresses the emergence
of the cult of saints within Christianity, its impact on the organization of the Church, as well
as the sacramental function assumed by a series of practices that today in the West we
classify as "popular religion", but which originally spanned all levels of the Church's life.
In addition to the historiographic value of Brown's work, which documents an era in
history quite denigrated by modern historiography, it is worth highlighting its contribution
to the discussion about the nature and function of the so-called “popular religion”. In fact,
Brown's work coincides with the celebration of the second meeting of the Episcopal
Conference of Latin America (Puebla 1979), the concluding document of which also opens a
new perspective for the theological evaluation of a series of practices of Latin American
Christianity that until then were considered mainly as deviations from "authentic"
European Christianity1.
In this regard, Brown emphasizes that the appearance of a “two-tiered model” (that
is, of an official religion and a popular religion), would only be plausible, eventually, after
the entry of Christianity into the public life of the Roman Empire, at the end of the 4th
century2. At that moment, a sort of clerical and intellectual elite was being consolidated,
which in the case of Western Christianity would have as main representatives Saint
Augustine and Saint Jerome (Brown 59-72).

1
For a critique of the concept of “popular religion” applied to the Latin American Church, see Aguirre 2020.
2
The two-tiered model, according to Brown, is elaborated during the Enlightenment, applying retroactively to late
antiquity. In this regard, see also Nogueira 2019, who maintains the existence of two levels as early as the so-
called “primitive Christianity”. Regarding to the cultural critic of the two levels of culture, see De Certeau 1996.

1
 Icon of Saint Jerome and icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy,
where all the authorities of the Empire venerate the icon of Virgin

From the end of the fourth century the leaders of Christianity who actively entered
the public life of the Empire and elaborated a sophisticated dogmatic apparatus for
Christianity began to distinguish themselves with respect to the mass of believers.
However, Brown warns that, despite that fact, both strata shared the same religious praxis,
in which the cult of saints stands out as a central practice (Brown 67). It is important to
emphasize, in this regard, that when we speak of the cult of saints we are not referring to a
theory of holiness but to a series of practices that have as their object relics and images,
which were venerated by rich and poor, by intellectual and illiterate people. John of
Damascus relates that John Chrysostom, one of the most prominent Christian intellectuals
of the 5th century, used to “talk” with the image of Saint Paul, while writing his comments
on the Pauline epistles. Such practices related to the image gave rise to a specific space and
time, the sanctuary and the religious feast, determining the geopolitical development of
this "new" Church associated with the Empire.
In this regard, Brown highlights the negotiation process between the saint and the
bishop, when the latter seeks to consolidate his institutional role as mediator of the sacred
against the supernatural power that the people recognize in the relics and images of the
saints (Brown 87-97). To some extent, the consolidation of episcopal institution in

2
Christianity went through a tacit agreement between saints and bishops, who, in many
cases, even had to transfer their episcopal sees to the vicinity of the sanctuaries and
associate the exercise of their political power to the thaumaturgical power of the saint who
“burst” into the sanctuary during the festive celebration.
Brown's work constitutes a great documentary contribution to overcome the
limitations of the modern two-tiered theory, which in many cases ends up building an
imaginary wall between areas of the life of the Church that are in practice interconnected.
The Second Council of Nicaea and the Council of Trent are examples of the interconnection
between the Christian dogma and the practices associated with the cult of saints, between
theological thinking and the theological life of Christian peoples. Although the tension
between these two spheres is a fact, especially in relation to the exercise of power and
control of the sacred, it is also true that the normative distinction between an official
religion and a popular religion oversimplifies the multifaceted reality of the Church, where
the same Spirit is manifested through a multitude of charisms (1 Cor, 4-11).
I would now like to address these two dimensions of the cult of saints, the dogmatic
and the pragmatic dimension, on the basis of the analysis of the specific function assumed
by the cult image (εἰκών) in the context of Christianity.

The image as testimony of the incarnation

The cult of the saints, and in particular the evolution of their veneration through the
cult image, is a reality that runs through the entire history of the Church to this day.
Nowadays, images are venerated in the sanctuaries of Latin America with the same fervour
that they were venerated in the period of late Antiquity. However, the appreciation of the
cult image in Christianity has not been uniform, since there have been iconoclastic
tendencies within Christianity from its origin to the present day. The cult image has been
called into question in a great range of places and eras: by Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea
(Schönborn 50-76), by certain approaches of Latin American theology that see in the worship
of images and other equivalent practices a “false praxis of liberation”, as well as the Council

3
of Frankfurt, the Cistercian reform and Calvinism (Belting 393-396). The cult image may not
have been always prohibited, but its sacramental power has surely been undermined.

Pope Francis venerates the icon of Salus Populi Romani and

the icon of Our Lady of Carmen in the feast of La Tirana, in the Nort of Chile

Now then, until the fourth century we cannot speak of a properly Christian
iconography (the oldest icons that are preserved are from the sixth century). On the other
hand, the Church's doctrine regarding the veneration of images wouldn’t develop until the
8th century and, like all doctrines, requires a permanent exercise of interpretation in the
light of the signs of the times. In this first part we would like to focus on the development
of this doctrine, which, as we know, occurs in the context of the so-called iconoclastic
controversy.
Some Orthodox theologians consider the iconoclastic controversy as the final
synthesis of Christian dogma, which coincides with the end of the patristic period3. In this
regard, the discussion raised during the iconoclastic controversy goes far beyond a purely
aesthetic or sociological question, linking itself to the fundamental presuppositions of
Christian dogma. As Cardinal Christoph Schönborn establishes in his comprehensive study
on the theological foundations of the veneration of images (1999), the Trinitarian and
Christological controversies are the true background of the iconoclastic controversy 4.

3
"There is no branch of theological teaching that can be isolated from the problem of the image without
running the risk of separating itself from the living stem of the Christian tradition [...] By the Incarnation -
fundamental dogmatic fact of Christianity -, 'image' and 'theology' are so closely linked that the expression
'theology of the image' could almost become a pleonasm (of course, as long as theology is considered
knowledge of God in his Logos, the consubstantial image of the Father). " Uspensky 496-497.
4
See Aguirre 2018: 256-272.

4
 Patriarch John Grammaticus whitewashes an icon of Christ (8th Century) and
The Andrei Rublev’s icon of Christ Saviour of God (15th Century)

In this way, the discussion of the iconoclastic controversy revolves around the three
fundamental questions that originate the doctrine of the incarnation: 1) is the incarnation
(the bodily existence of Jesus Christ) simply a transitory state of the Son, later surpassed by
the Logos?; 2) is the Son, the “visible image of the invisible God” (Col 1, 15), inferior to the
Father?; and 3) what does the image “represent”, only the form (ὑπόστασις) or also the
essence (οὐσία) of the prototype?
The defenders of the icons will argue that the image of Jesus Christ is proof of His
incarnation, a testimony homologous to that of the Gospels, transmitted from generation
to generation through ecclesiastical tradition, therefore whoever denies recognizing Christ
Himself in His image, denies that He was incarnated, crucified, and rose again for our
salvation5. The connection between the argumentation in favour of the images and the
preceding Christological and Trinitarian discussions is evident in the recurring citations to

5
See the Nicaea II formulation: "If anyone does not confess Christ our God circumscribed according to
humanity, let him be anathema" (DH 606).

5
Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea, both in the conciliar text and in the work of
the Holy Fathers defenders of icons6.
As an answer to the first two questions posed above, the veneration of images will
not cause major inconveniences: 1) The face of Christ, like every aspect of his bodily
existence, constitutes a full expression of the dual nature of the Son, man and God, and 2)
The Son, who is the image (εἰκών) of the Father, is not ontologically inferior but rather they
share the same divine essence, attested by his resurrection and the signs (σημεῖα) of His
life on earth. In this sense, the iconoclastic controversy does not involve any novelty
regarding the explanation of the doctrine of the incarnation. Now, the third question (what
does the image represent?) will become a real challenge for the theologians of the
iconoclastic controversy, since a “natural” image is not the same as an "artificial" image.
The first one shares the same essence as its prototype (such as the Son with respect to the
Father), while the second one differs radically from its prototype on the ontological level,
as is the case of a portrait with respect to the person it represents7.
In other words, the Son does the same (Jn 5, 19) and shares the same existence (Heb
1, 3) with the Father, while a portrait is the inanimate reproduction of a prototype that
moves, speaks, smiles, stares, etc., freely and voluntarily. What is more, the portrait may
look more or less like its prototype, in which case there would be better and worse cult
images. The theological concept of "image" (εἰκών), as it was used in the arguments against
Arianism, establishes the essential identity between the Father and the Son (ὁμοούσιοι),
but at the same time safeguards the personal alterity between the two (at the level of
ὑπόστασις), without which there could not be a relationship of communion between the
two. However, when applied by analogy to the case of the cult image, the problem of the
ontological distance between image and prototype arises.
Now, from the first phase of the iconoclastic controversy, particularly in the work of
John of Damascus, it is defined that what the cult image represents is not the essence

6
See, in Nicaea II: "Because the honor of the image goes to the original, and he who worships an image
worships the person represented in it" (DH 601).
7
This distinction between "natural" and "artificial" image will be raised during the second period of the
iconoclastic controversy by Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (see Schönborn 182-207).

6
(οὐσία) but the hypostasis (ὑπόστασις)8. In this sense, the production and veneration of an
image of Jesus Christ does not seek to define, much less contain his divinity, but rather to
"circumscribe" (περιγράφω) the aspect of his hypostasis. As established during the
iconoclastic controversy, the cult image does not replace the prototype, but neither is it a
simple edifying illustration: it has a sacramental power that comes from the very event of
the incarnation, i.e., God has adopted a specific body and face (a theandric ὑπόστασις), and
through this concrete, material existence, He wanted to make Himself known (Jn 1, 18).
It is at this point that lies the theological foundation of the sacramental function of
the image, and the contribution of the iconoclastic controversy to the explanation of the
doctrine of the incarnation. The image of worship does not "circumscribe" the divine
essence but rather its hypostasis, through which God Himself (Father, Son and Spirit) makes
Himself known, communicates and carries out the sanctification of man and woman9. As
Cardinal Schönborn highlights in commenting on the postulates of John of Damascus, the
iconoclastic controversy, together with underlining the centrality of Christological
mediation in Christian revelation, highlights the material and concrete dimension - the
ἐφάπαξ (Rom 6, 10) - of the Salvation:

"Through matter my salvation is accomplished." Matter is not in the outer and lowest
periphery of the remoteness of God, as in Neoplatonism, it is not the furthest thing from
God and therefore the most infernal. Rather, the entire economy of salvation is mediated
by the material element. Thus, matter is not an obstacle on the way to God, but rather
becomes the site of the mediation of salvation, through its inclusion in the Mystery of
Christ”. (174)

It is this way that the answer is given to the third question we raised above: the
artificial image, like every sacramental sign, represents through perceptible mediation (SC
7), not "immediately", like the natural image. This establishes a radical difference between
image and prototype, but it also claims for a dignity for the artificial image, which is neither
more nor less than a sacramental dignity. It is worth highlighting the pneumatological

8
"[In the icon] it is not the invisible divinity that is represented, but the visible flesh of God" (Οὐ τὴν
ἀόρατον εἰκονίζω θεότητα, ἀλλ’ εἰκονίζω Θεοῦ τὴν ὁραθεῖσαν σάρακα) J. Damasceno De imaginibus oratio
III, PG 94, 1326C.
9
As Theodore the Studite points out: “In the icon of Christ there is no other hypostasis next to the person of
Christ. Rather, it is the very person of Christ, or rather his expression (charaktêr) that through the form of his
appearance appears and is worshiped in the icon.” (in Schönborn 199).

7
dimension of the cult image, because if someone can recognize the salvific action of God in
the world and in the saints, it is thanks to the action of the Spirit (1 Cor 12, 3), who acts
through every sacramental sign.

The image as sacramental

In this last section, I would like to go a little deeper into the sacramental function of
the image of worship that, in addition to being a testimony of holiness, is constituted in a
medium of sanctification. Importantly, the cult image is not an amulet or a magic item. Its
sacramental efficacy does not depend on the artistic skill of the one who produces it or the
power of the one who manipulates it, but on the communal action of the People of God
assisted by the Spirit. For this reason, the authorship of the cult images does not belong to
an artist but to the whole of the people who celebrate it, with votive offerings, candles,
processions, etc., that is, with concrete practices that give shape to the salvific economy.
Now, all sacramental action is based on the priesthood of Jesus Christ, that is, on the
actions, miracles or signs (σημεῖα) that he performed during His life on Earth (SC 7). Thus,
the sacraments are, on the one hand, a commemoration and, on the other, an actualization
of the salvific action of Jesus Christ in the Church through the Holy Spirit. For this reason, all
the sacraments are linked to some story of the Gospels and are performed by a celebrating
community. In the case of the sacramental sign of the image, there is an apocryphal story
of the life of Jesus, which is usually cited by the fathers of the iconoclastic period as an
evangelical antecedent of its sacramental function.
It is the story of King Abgar of Edessa (E. of Caesarea, Hist. Eccl., 1.12), who, being
seriously ill and having heard about the power of Jesus, sent a messenger to Palestine to
bring Him in order to be healed. Jesus, after proclaiming Abgar as "blessed" because he
believed without having seen, took a piece of fabric and, placing it on His face, printed its
image. When the image of Christ's face arrived, Abgar received it solemnly and placed it
devoutly on his face, after which he was healed of his illness. This miraculous image —
ἀχειροποίητα or "not made by hand of man"— gave rise to the development of the
iconographic type of the Holy Face, very popular in the context of Eastern Christianity.

8
 The icon of the Holy Face and medieval icons related to the story of King Abgar

In this way, every time the people celebrate the image of a saint, kiss it, light it a
candle, talk to it, decorate it, take it out in procession, dance for it, etc., they are
commemorating the event of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and receiving His salvific
action. In this sense, in the veneration of images, the three constitutive aspects of every
sacramental action are present: a) it is a perceptible sign of the paschal event, b) that
signifies and accomplishes the sanctification of the people, c) through the action of the
Holy Spirit within the celebrating community.
It should be noted that the actions carried out with the image are constitutive of its
sacramental efficacy. In this sense, we could affirm that the cult image has a performative
nature, since, on the one hand, it provokes a series of practices that range from lighting a
candle to taking it out in procession and, on the other, it conveys the sanctifying power of
God. For this reason, the cult image is not an object that can be manipulated at will10.
Through the images, Christ, the Virgin and the Saints are "personified" and they
communicate with the faithful People, displaying new aspects of their biography in relation
to the current experiences of each community, as if they were living people11. The
existence of advocations of the Virgin or the connection of certain saints to local legends - a
phenomenon present in all times of Christianity - account for this personal relationship
between the saint and the community.
Now, this direct relationship of the people with God has always raised problems for
theology and ecclesiastical authorities. As we mentioned at the beginning, already in late

10
See the distinction between "image of worship" and "image of devotion" Guardini 15-35.
11
See Aguirre 2020.

9
antiquity a tension is observed between the figure of the saint and the figure of the bishop.
The actual iconoclastic controversy arises, to some extent, from the lack of control that
certain ecclesiastical and imperial sectors observe in the use of images. The Tridentine
Church, while promoting the use of images for evangelization in Latin America, observes
with concern the appearance of images of the Virgin that communicate directly with native
peoples12. The modern description of this type of practices as "popular religion" indicates a
normative distinction with respect to an "official religion", which translates into a strict
separation between the sacramental actions of the people ("piety") and those of the clergy
(the "liturgy").

Icons veneration in Eastern and West Christianity

In no case do we intend to resolve this issue within the framework of this brief
presentation. However, we would like to raise concerns regarding this tension, which has so
often arised due to the veneration of images and all that they entail: feasts, vows, devotions,
etc. The worship of Christ, the Virgin and the saints through images, in this sense, accounts
for the conflict that has arisen so many times between the people and the normative
instances of the Church (the clergy, the magisterium or the theology), but also the possibility
of an authentic consensus fidei, witnessed in the work of the fathers of the iconoclastic
controversy, in the reception and closeness of a clergy who walks alongside their
parishioners, and in the vitality of the faith of a people who celebrate the joy of the gospel.

12
See Gruzinski 102-157.

10
Bibliographic references
AGUIRRE, Federico (2020). “Religión popular: fiesta e imagen”. Veritas (en prensa).
─. (2018). Arte y teología. El renacimiento de la pintura de íconos en Grecia
moderna. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones UC.

BELTING, Hans (2009). Imagen y culto: una historia de la imagen anterior a la edad del arte.
Madrid: Akal

BROWN, Peter (2018). El culto a los santos. Madrid: Sígueme

DE CERTEAU, Michele (1996). La invención de lo cotidiano. 1 Las artes del hacer. México
D.F.: Universidad Iberoamericana

GRUZINSKI, Serge (1994). La guerra de las imágenes. De Cristóbal Colón a “Blade Runner”
(1492-2019). FCE: México

GUARDINI, Romano (1960). Imagen de culto e imagen de devoción. Sobre la esencia del
Arte. Madrid: Guadarrama.

SCHÖNBORN, Christoph (1999). El ícono de Cristo. Una introducción teológica. Madrid:

Encuentro.

USPENSKY, Leonidas (2013). La teología del ícono. Madrid: Sígueme 2013

11