What is "veneration" of an icon?
Why isn't it idolatry and how can it help your spiritual life?
The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration.
Second Council of Nicaea, 787
The same objections to the use of icons or images in Christian worship have been repeated for centuries, from the early church to the Reformation and on to this day. Critics usually insist that images risk becoming objects of idolatry, violating the biblical prohibition against graven images. However, Eastern Christianity has maintained since the earliest times that the veneration of icons is not worship but a sacred and sanctifying spiritual practice.
In today’s post for all subscribers, we’re going to reach back to the period when there was no distinction in Christendom between “east” and “west” and look closely at our shared spiritual concept of “venerating” icons and other sacred objects. There are a lot of misconceptions over this subject in the Latin west especially since we abandoned the ancient principles of the iconodules. These ideas have particularly gained traction since the 15th century adoption of Naturalism in western Christian art (the “Renaissance”), leading to the cataclysm of the Protestant Revolution and the Protestant revival of the ancient Jewish and Islamic slanders against sacred images.
We will examine some of the parallels in the west with the correct use of icons, called veneration, in some of our liturgical and devotional practices like the Good Friday liturgy and the veneration of holy relics. And we’ll talk about how our naturalistic - that is, profane - cultural reverence for “great works of art” since the Renaissance differs in nature, purpose and outcome from true Iconodulia.
The Sacred Images Project is a reader-supported publication where we talk about Christian life, thought, history and culture through the lens of the first 1200 years of sacred art. It’s my full time job, but it’s still not bringing a full time income. You can subscribe for free to get one and a half posts a week.
For $9/month you also get the second half of the weekly Goodie Bag post, plus a weekly paywalled in-depth article on this great sacred patrimony, plus our Benedictine Book Club in the Substack Chat. There are also occasional extras like downloadable exclusive high resolution printable images, ebooks, mini-courses, videos and eventually podcasts.
If you would prefer to set up a recurring patronage in an amount of your choice, or make a one-off contribution, you can do that at my studio blog. Anyone who signs up for a patronage of $9/month or more will, of course, receive a complimentary subscription to the paid sections of The Sacred Images Project.
This helps me a lot because the patronages through the studio blog are not subject to the 10% Substack fee:
This is the site where I post photos of my own work as it develops. I have a shop there where some of my drawings and paintings are available for sale as prints, as well as some other items.
Common errors:
Icons as mere art: in the west, we tend to think of icons as decorative or at most didactic religious art rather than spiritual tools for prayer and communion with God.
Icons as magical objects: in the east, there can be a temptation to think icons have inherent power, but in Orthodox theology, they point to divine truths and do not possess miraculous properties themselves.
What veneration of icons isn’t; a critical distinction
At the heart of the confusion surrounding the veneration of icons is a misunderstanding of the difference between veneration (proskynesis) and worship (latreia). In Western Christian thought, particularly post-Renaissance and Reformation, this distinction has been blurred or misrepresented, leading to a revival of the old Jewish and Islamic accusation1 that venerating icons is akin to idolatry2. In reality, Eastern Christianity maintains a careful and ancient distinction between these two different kinds of acts, with veneration being an act of reverence and honour, while worship is reserved solely for God.
In western theological terminology, we make the same distinction between veneration and worship. The Latin terms dulia and latria define two distinct forms of religious honour. Dulia refers to the honour and veneration properly given to saints, angels, or holy objects, recognising their sanctity and intercessory role. Latria, on the other hand, is the worship and adoration reserved exclusively for God, acknowledging His divine sovereignty and majesty.
The confusion arises for the Anglosphere because the English word “worship” has been used since the 16th century to translate both dulia and latria, leading to misunderstandings about practices like the veneration of saints or icons. In older English usage, “worship” could mean to show deep respect or honour, but over time, it became more strictly associated with the adoration due to God alone.
This linguistic shift has contributed to the misconception that venerating saints or icons is idolatrous when, in fact, it follows the ancient Christian distinction between dulia and latria.
The icon and the prototype
Veneration refers to showing honour and respect to holy persons or sacred material objects, such as icons or relics, that are understood to convey that honour to the person depicted, an acknowledgment of the spiritual reality that the object represents - the prototype.
“Prototype”
In iconography, the term is used in two distinct but related ways:
Theological Prototype: The prototype refers to the holy figure or person depicted in the icon, such as Christ, the Virgin Mary, or a saint. When venerating an icon, the honour shown to the image is understood to pass to its prototype, meaning the actual person in heaven whom the icon represents. This concept is central to the practice of veneration, ensuring that the image itself is not worshipped but serves as a connection or conduit to the person it symbolises.
Artistic Prototype: In a technical or artistic sense, the prototype refers to the original icon or model that serves as the basis for later iconographic representations. Iconographers traditionally follow established models or prototypes to ensure consistency with canonical depictions, maintaining the integrity of the theological message. For example, images of the Nativity of Christ or the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, or of saints are often based on earlier icons, which themselves follow ancient conventions dating back to the early church.
When an Eastern Christian venerates an icon of Christ or the saints, they are not bowing down to the paint, wood, or material of the icon itself. Rather, they are showing reverence for the person depicted in the icon, whether Christ, the Theotokos or a particular saint. This honour does not stop at the physical image but is understood to “pass over” to and be accepted by the person it symbolises. The icon serves not only as a reminder of the heavenly reality, but as a mystical conduit, bringing that sacred presence into the believer’s environment.
In 787 it was made official: icons are to be used in Christian worship
This distinction was articulated clearly during the Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787, which was called to address the Iconoclastic Crisis sparked when the Byzantine Emperor ordered the destruction of such images and persecuted the Iconodules. The council reaffirmed that icons could be venerated because the honour given to them passes on to their prototypes, but that worship is reserved for God alone.
The fathers of the Second Council of Nicaea minced no words in describing and condemning the error of the Iconoclasts:
Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy catholic church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of this age. This promise however he made not only to them but also to us, who thanks to them have come to believe in his name.
To this gracious offer some people paid no attention, being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning, and setting themselves against the tradition of the catholic church they faltered in their grasp of the truth. As the proverbial saying puts it, they turned askew the axles of their farm carts and gathered no harvest in their hands. Indeed they had the effrontery to criticise the beauty pleasing to God established in the holy monuments; they were priests in name, but not in reality.
They were those of whom God calls out by prophecy, Many pastors have destroyed my vine, they have defiled my portion. For they followed unholy men and trusting to their own frenzies they calumniated the holy church, which Christ our God has espoused to himself, and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.
Icons and the Incarnation: the sanctification of material reality
St. John of Damascus, one of the most prominent defenders of icons during he period of Iconoclasm, articulated the position that would later be made universal, that since Christ took on human form, it is permissible to depict Him, just as we can represent and honour other holy figures.
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. Never will I cease honouring the matter which wrought my salvation! I honour it, but not as God.
[The creation of representational art for veneration] “…is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary”
Second Council of Nicaea
The equation of veneration with idolatry, assuming that any honour given to an image is a violation of the Second Commandment, stems from a materialistic interpretation of the natural world, and therefore of religious images. This view reduces religious images to mere objects, overlooking the Christian idea of the sacramentality of the material world. In Christian theology, material objects can serve as channels of divine grace, as seen in the sacraments, where ordinary elements like water, bread, and wine are sanctified to convey spiritual realities.
In Eastern Christianity, icons are understood as sacred tools that convey a connection to the divine. The Second Commandment forbids the worship (latria) of idols, which are false gods, but veneration of icons is not about idolising the material object. Instead, it reflects a profound theological understanding that God, through the Incarnation, has sanctified the material world, making it capable of pointing toward divine truths. Therefore, veneration is seen as a spiritual act, not a breach of the commandment.
In Romans 8:22-23, St. Paul speaks about the longing of creation for redemption in the Incarnate Christ:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.”
In this passage, Paul suggests that all of creation, not just humanity, is affected by the fall and longs for redemption and transformation. In Christian theology, the material world is not only good but also participates in salvation by awaiting its full sanctification in Christ. In Christ's Incarnation, all of creation will ultimately be renewed and brought into its intended harmony with the divine.
Western veneration: relics and the holy cross
We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways.
Second Council of Nicaea
In Western Christian worship, there are several practices that closely parallel the veneration of icons in the East, particularly in how sacred objects or symbols are treated with profound reverence. One notable example is the veneration of the Cross during the Good Friday liturgy in Roman Catholic, Anglican, and some Protestant traditions. During this service, worshippers approach a cross or crucifix, often bowing, kissing, or touching it in an act of devotion.
This ritual mirrors the veneration of icons, as the physical cross is not worshipped but serves as a powerful symbol of Christ’s sacrifice, drawing believers into prayer and reflection. The honour given to the cross in this context is a sign of reverence for Christ’s victory over death, and, as in icon veneration, the devotion passes to what the cross represents, not the object itself.
Similarly, the veneration of holy relics—the physical remains or personal effects of saints—has long been a tradition in Western Christianity. Relics are often treated with great respect, carried in processions, displayed in churches, and approached with gestures of reverence. Just as in icon veneration, the honour given to relics is directed not to the material object but to the holy person associated with them.
“Even after death, the saints act as the living: they heal the sick and cast out demons, repelling any evil by the power of the Lord. Indeed, the miraculous grace of the Holy Spirit is always inherent in holy relics.”
Saint Ephrem the Syrian, c. 306 – 373
Relics, like icons, serve as tangible connections to the divine and inspire the faithful to deepen their spiritual lives. These parallels in Western worship show that the practice of venerating sacred objects is not foreign to Western Christianity, but rather follows similar theological principles, demonstrating that honouring physical objects in a liturgical setting can be a legitimate and spiritually enriching practice.
Western profane reverence for “great works of art” - it’s not veneration
The misunderstandings that have grown between East and West about the proper use of sacred images coincided with the growth of naturalistic “realism” in art with Christian subjects. This rift has contributed to a divergence in how religious art is understood. When we are standing in front of a famous work in a museum or even in a church like the Sistine Chapel, we can easily have a tremendous emotional experience of awe or excitement. But this is not at all the same thing as the spiritual act of venerating a sacred image.
While in the East, sacred images have continued to serve as tools for prayer and conduits of divine presence, the shift in focus in the West from spiritual reverence and theological purpose to aesthetic appreciation and emotional appeal has all but eradicated the practice of theological/spiritual veneration of icons.
Since the Renaissance3, Western culture has developed a naturalistic, or profane, reverence for “great works of art,” - especially related to a cult of the “celebrity artist” that appeared that time - treating them as objects of aesthetic or even historical admiration rather than spiritual significance. This cultural shift prioritises technical mastery, human creativity, and individual expression, often detaching art from its sacred context. And worse, it creates a confusion or conflation between this naturalistic reaction to something famous, and authentic spiritual veneration.
In contrast, Iconodulia, the veneration of icons, focuses on the spiritual purpose of the image, which is to facilitate prayer and communion with God. Unlike Renaissance art, icons are not admired for their artistic value or connection to a famous name, but revered for their ability to reveal and make present divine realities, making their nature, purpose, and outcome fundamentally different from secular art.
St. John of Damascus
One of the most influential defenders of this practice was St. John of Damascus (c. 676–749). John was a prominent Christian theologian, monk, public administrator and defender of icons during the Iconoclastic Crisis. He was born into a prominent Christian family in Damascus during the time of the city's conquest by the Islamic Caliphate. His father served as a government official under the Muslim rulers, and John later succeeded him, playing a significant role in the administration before eventually leaving to become a monk at the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem.
John wrote Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images, defending the veneration of icons, and his theological contributions earned him recognition as a Doctor of the Church in the West. He articulated a powerful theological case distinguishing between veneration and worship that laid the foundation for the Eastern Church’s understanding of icons.
I’m happy to offer as a downloadable PDF document the full text - 53 pages - of the original work in translation by St. John of Damascus.
What does it look like?
Practically, veneration of icons in Eastern Christianity is done through physical and reverential acts that express honour and respect, not worship.
These include:
Bowing or prostrating before the icon.
Kissing the icon, often on the hands or feet of the figure depicted.
Lighting candles or offering incense in front of the icon.
Crossing oneself while standing before the icon.
These gestures reflect reverence for the holy person depicted, inviting deeper prayer and communion with God, while recognizing that the honour is directed through the image to the divine.
Internally, during the veneration of icons, the believer’s mind and heart are focused on connecting with the spiritual reality represented by the icon. Mentally, they acknowledge that the icon serves as a conduit to the divine, not an end in itself. This inward attitude fosters humility, reverence, and a sense of the sacred.
Spiritually, the act of veneration draws the believer closer to God and the saints. Through prayer, contemplation, and awareness of God’s presence, the icon becomes a means for experiencing divine grace and participating in the heavenly realm.
In the Christian tradition, worship - “latria” - involves giving glory to the triune God, acknowledging His infinite power and majesty. Worship is characterised by acts of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, all of which are directed to the divine alone. In the case of icons, we are clear that we do not worship the icon itself.
Icons are not merely art, but neither are they magical objects. Rather, they are sacred tools that lead the faithful to a deeper connection with the divine.
It is important to remember that the Iconoclastic crisis came only after the rise of militant Islam and the conquests by Islamic Arabs of the traditionally Christian lands putting tremendous political pressure on the Byzantine empire. The emperor’s decision to start persecuting iconodules was seen as an attempt to appease a political and military threat.
As we discussed here, “Erase images; erase a people”.
We’ve discussed this shift in depth a number of times. Lies the Renaissance told you, Pt 1. And Part 2. As well as “What’s wrong with this picture? We worship God, not stone or wood: why Christian sacred art can't be Naturalistic.” And we go into its consequences in No, The Renaissance, Man is not "the measure of all things," sit down.
Great summary, and I appreciate the download. Gotta love St John of Damascus!
Hi Hilary! I’ve been following your Substack for some time as a free subscriber and this is my first time commenting. I’m not Orthodox or Catholic (at this time), but over the past two years I’ve developed a significant interest in Eastern Christianity. Among others, I’ve read John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, and Leonid Ouspensky, and I find the theology of icons beautiful and compelling.
With that said, many Protestant commentators on the subject are usually able to pull out a large amount of contrary evidence from the ante-Nicene period, referencing authors such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, whose strong language against the use of images in a pagan context seems to indicate the unlikelihood of their use at the time by Christians. At the same time, we do have archaeological evidence from the Roman catacombs and sites from Dura Europos showing that at least some groups of ante-Nicene Christians painted scenes from the Bible as well as symbolic motifs like the Good Shepherd. The latter seems to have had at least some liturgical significance given that Tertullian actually mentions it painted on sacramental chalices and it’s actually painted over the baptistery at the Dura-Europos site.
I guess I would maybe like to hear more from you on the historicity of “veneration” practices. My own theory at this time is something like the following:
The church does not appear to have had a codified practice of veneration but treated these images as they felt appropriate (being led by the mind of Christ). Later on, they became recognized as a true means of grace in the liturgy of worship and a codified practice was established at Nicea II—both in response to the opposition of the iconoclasts and to cut off the abuses that had sparked the dispute. The dichotomy between merely “didactic” and sacramental images may not have been as pronounced in earlier times (especially if we conceive of iconography being a visual subset of the “Sacrament of the Word”).
Would this view be in line with what the Eastern Church teaches about icons?