|
|
THE ICONOCLAST CONTROVERSY AND THE
SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
Last week we
looked at the Monastic movement which began in the fourth century and then
at the first Six Ecumenical Councils which with the exception of the
sixth, were called to deal with matters of faith and especially the many
heresies that troubled the Church and had to be condemned to safeguard the
true faith and the teaching of salvation. Many of you found the talk
difficult to follow which is not surprising since we heard strange
heresies like those of the Arians, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Semi-Arians,
Pneumatomachi, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, Macedonians,
Apollinarians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Millenarians and
others. Today it remains for us to see the Seventh Ecumenical Council
which was called to condemn the Iconoclast Controversy. Again this is not
going to be an easy talk because we have to see what happened in the years
before the Synod and also other Synods after it which some accepted and
others rejected. We have talked about Icons before and then covered much
of the troublesome history of the Icon and the decree of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, thus part of what you will hear today can be found in
the previous talk.
Icons had
always had its opponents in the Church especially from those with a
puritan outlook who thought of Icons as a form of idolatry, but in general
they were accepted as being essential items helpful in narrating the
religious stories in pictures. In time they were accepted as representing
the person portrayed in his absence, similar to the images of the emperor
which under Roman law was a legal substitute used in place of the Emperor
being there in person. This of course doesn’t mean that the Icon was used
as a substitute for Christ and the saints: it was never worshipped as an
idol, but was only a material symbol and the Church clearly taught that it
should only be given relative honour and veneration but never to be
worshipped in the same way that God alone is worshipped. But the Icon was
something much more that just a symbol because as we shall see later, it
had a doctrinal significance and was essential in teaching the true dogma
on the incarnation and on man’s salvation.
The Iconoclast
movement first appeared in 723 under Caliph Yazid II. Some eastern
territories like Syria and Egypt where now under Muslim control and the
Caliph ordered the removal of all Icons from his territory. The Eastern
Roman Empire was now under the Emperor Leo III. Historians believe that he
originated from eastern Asia Minor, near the border with the Moslem world,
and had been exposed to Moslem influences, which from 700, forbade images
and in particular the representation of the human form in pictures. He was
probably also influenced by the Monophysite heresy which was very strong
in the Eastern provinces. Leo, who believed that Icons where a form of
idolatry, wanted to reform the Empire and rid the Church of Icons. He was
supported by top clergymen among whom were three Bishops from Asia Minor,
Thomas of Claudiopolis, Theodosius of Ephesus and Constantine of Nacolia.
Constantine went to Constantinople to try and win over the Patriarch
Germanos to the iconoclastic cause, but the Patriarch refused to accept
any doctrine that contradicted the councils and the tradition of the
Church and wrote a long letter in support of the holy images. This did not
stop the unholy movement. The three bishops proceeded to destroy the
images in their respective regions and the Emperor made his opposition to
the veneration of Icons public by a series of speeches. His attempt to win
over public opinion had failed: the people and the clergy were opposed to
his plans. Leo then ordered the destruction of a greatly venerated Icon of
Christ which was above the Bronze Gate in Constantinople. This immediately
caused a riot resulting in the death of an officer. Leo ordered the
punishment of the guilty persons, which resulted in arrests, tortures and
executions.
Things
were getting out of hand and the Emperor invited the Patriarch to the
Senate to sign an act that prohibited Icons. The Patriarch removed his
Bishop’s stole (omophorion) and refused to have any other faith that that
which he received from the Ecumenical Councils. Some days later, Leo had a
new patriarch elected from among those who were loyal to his cause. Now
with the Emperor and Patriarch united in the one cause, icons were removed
from the Churches and replaced with images of flowers, ornaments and
birds. The citizens of Constantinople were ordered to bring their icons to
a public place so that they could be burnt. Many who resisted were
condemned, tortured and killed, while others were exiled or left the
Capital.
The fight
against the Iconoclasts was taken up by the new Pope, Gregory III, in 731.
He convoked a council in Rome which condemned the Iconoclastic policies of
the Emperor and excommunicated everyone who opposed the veneration of the
icons and blasphemed and destroyed them. Leo was not pleased to say the
least. To punish Rome, he took from the Pope's jurisdiction and ceded to
the patriarchate of Constantinople the Greek provinces of southern Italy
as well as Sicily and Illyricum.
Leo III died
in 741 and his son Constantine V Copronymus now sat on the throne of the
Roman Emperors continuing his father’s persecution of the Iconodules.
Around this time another adversary of iconoclasm came to the defence of
the holy Icons: St. John of Damascus. He lived in Palestine which was then
occupied by the Arabs and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the
Emperor. St. John was an eminent Theologian and belonged to an equally
eminent family. His father, Sergius Mansur, was a treasurer at the court
of the caliph and after his death; John occupied ministerial posts at
court and became the city prefect. John wrote three treatises entitled,
“Against those who revile the Holy Icons.” John’s writings enraged the
emperor, but since the author was not a Byzantine subject, the emperor was
unable to lock him up in prison, or to execute him. John’s treatises set
out a theology of the Icon that has been used by theologians ever since.
He took all the arguments used by the Iconoclasts and proved through Holy
Scripture and ancient testimonies that in reality they subscribed to Arian
and Monophysite heresies. He showed that by opposing the Icon, as did the
Iconoclasts, they were denying that God had become man which at the same
time broke the union between God and man which Christ united in Himself.
If man’s union with God is broken then that also means that man has no
means to be saved, his salvation is lost and faith in Christ is in vain.
John’s teaching can be summed up in the following lines that he wrote: “In
former times, God, who was without form or body and was uncircumscribable,
could never be depicted, but now that God has appeared in the flesh and
lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. 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.” [St. John of Damascus]
The legitimacy
of the Icon was therefore founded on the Incarnation which abolished the
Old Testament law prohibiting images and changed the relation between the
Creator and the creatures.
St. John’s
writings along with those of Pope Gregory III were having their effect
throughout the Church. As tensions mounted everywhere, the Emperor was
forced to convoke a council to condemn those in favour of Icons. The
Council was held in 754 at Hiera in an imperial palace near the Capital.
They called the synod the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but it was never
recognized by any of the Patriarchates and is commonly called the mock
synod of Constantinople. The synod decreed that Icons were a blasphemy.
The main argument was that if we have an image of Christ who is God-man,
then that image represents both the created flesh and the Godhead which
cannot be represented. They thus accused the Iconodules of Monophysite
heresies and Nestorianism which in fact they were the ones who subscribed
to these heresies by thinking that the Icon shared in the human or divine
nature. They thought on material levels without understanding the true
dogma concerning Christ’s two natures in one Person, one Hypostasis. The
Icon therefore didn’t share in the two nature’s of Christ, but in the
Person as was made clearer at a later date by another defender of Icons,
St Theodore the Studite who we shall see later on.
The
Synod which was composed of 338 bishops, all in favour of the Iconoclast
movement, condemned the Icons and those who honoured them. With their
closing Anathemas they singled out three defenders of the Icon for special
anathemas and excommunication: They are the Patriarch Germanos, George of
Cyprus and St. John of Damascus who they called by his family name Mansur.
After the mock synod, a new wave of persecutions began. The Emperor
singled out the more noted monks and required them to comply with the
decrees of the synod. Everyone who opposed the Iconoclasts was now
officially branded as a heretic and harsh punishments awaited them. As a
result many were tortured, exiled or executed and many monks were forced
into marriages. In 766 the Emperor exacted an oath against images from all
the inhabitants of the Empire. The monks refused with violent obstinacy
and Copronymus appears to have amused himself by treating them with
ruthless harshness to the point of contemplating the extirpation of
monasticism. Monks were forced to appear in the hippodrome at
Constantinople hand in hand with prostitutes while the people spat on
them. The monastery relics were thrown into the sea and the monasteries
themselves which had became centres of resistance were destroyed, turned
into army barracks or stables. Other stories tell of how monks were
gathered together, forced to wear white and then being presented with
wives were forced to choose between marriage and the loss of their
eyesight.
The Emperor
died in 775 and was succeeded by his son Leo IV the Khasar. Leo was also
an Iconoclast but he applied the decrees in a more liberal fashion. His
short reign is marked by the easing of the persecution. He died in 780 and
the regency was assumed by his wife Irene because their only son
Constantine was still only six years old. The Empress Irene came from
Athens and was a devoted and faithful laywoman and a supporter of Icons.
She planned to change the state of affairs, but had to carry out her
policy with great caution. A whole generation had grown up accustomed to a
Church without images; it was not going to be easy to bring them back to
venerating Icons, but she was helped by a series of miracles performed by
re-emerging relics and Icons that had been thrown into the sea. When the
Patriarch died she had Tarasius elected as the New Patriarch. Tarasius had
until then been the Patriarch’s secretary and was still a layman at the
time of his election. He immediately abolished the iconoclast decisions of
the mock synod and with Irene called together a truly Ecumenical Council
which was held in 787 at Nicaea and is recognized by all as the Seventh
Ecumenical Council. The Council was attended by 350 Bishops, monks and
other representatives from Rome and all the other patriarchates.
Using texts
from Holy Scripture and the fathers, the council proved that the
veneration of Icons was a legitimate practice, but they were most explicit
in declaring that this veneration was merely a veneration of honour and
affection which can be given to the creature, but under no circumstances
could the adoration of divine worship be given to them which is reserved
for God alone. In the words of the council this is what was unanimously
decreed: “We define the rule with all accuracy and
after thorough examination, that in a manner similar to the precious and
vivifying cross, the venerable and Holy Icons, painted or mosaic, or made
of any other suitable material, be placed in the Holy Churches of God,
upon sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, houses and
streets, both of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our
undefiled Sovereign Lady, the Holy Mother of God; and also of the Holy
Angels, and of all the Saints. For the more often and frequent their
representation in an image is seen, the more those beholding are led to
remember the originals which they represent and for whom the person
beholding begets a yearning in the soul and grows to love them more. Also
such persons are prompted to kiss and pay them honorary veneration, not
the true adoration which according to our faith, is proper only to the one
divine nature, but in the same way veneration is given to the image of the
precious and vivifying cross, the Holy Gospels and other sacred objects,
which we honour with incense and candles according to the custom of our
forefathers by way of manifesting piety. For the honour given to the Icon
is passed on to the original, and whosoever bows down in reverence before
the Icon, is at the same time bowing down in reverence to the person
represented on it”.
The Seventh
Ecumenical Council was originally accepted by all, but certain political
events lead to a distancing between the east and the west which resulted
in the Frankish kingdom questioning the Orthodoxy of the Council. For many
years, the Frankish court towards the Greeks had been more than just
unfavourable. There were bad feelings and memories between Irene and the
Frankish king Charlemagne after Irene broke off an engagement between her
son and Charlemagne’s daughter. Charlemagne it seems was unaware of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council until he was sent by Pope Hadrian a copy of the
acts translated into Latin in order that he might signify his acceptance
of the Council. But the translation was so badly done that either the
translator was ignorant of Latin as well as Greek or the translation was
purposely changed to discredit the Greek Council. It contained such errors
as using the word “worship” instead of “venerate” and quotes from bishops
meaning exactly the opposite of what they actually said. Charlemagne
cannot be blamed for the translation, but it has been said that he also
had in his possession a copy of the original Greek text which he probable
ignored. He also had serious grievances against Irene and with the
translation of the Acts of the Council he found reasons to have her
council rejected. As a result of these bad feelings Charlemagne ordered a
written reply to the Pope and the Council, which have come to be known as
the Caroline Books.
From the
contents of the books, it is clear that the authors had never read the
acts or decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of which they were
writing about and were also ignorant of the Mock council that took place
in 754. They quoted things that were apparently said at the Seventh
Council which were actually said at the Iconoclast Mock council and made
such serious mistakes as attributing to Constantius the Bishop of Cyprus
the monstrous statement that the sacred images were to be given the
supreme adoration due to the Holy Trinity. The Caroline Books based on the
false translation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council found the Greeks to be
Idol worshippers and totally rejected the Seventh as being Ecumenical in
character. Now this is a clear contradiction to how they began the Books.
After praises and exalting the Roman See, they mention that the Roman See
(that is the Pope) is the absolute authority of all matters pertaining to
the faith of the Church. What they seemed to have forgotten is that at the
Seventh Ecumenical council there were present representatives of the Pope
and that the Pope himself accepted the Seventh as truly ecumenical. Their
rejection now was also rejecting the Popes authority and placed him among
those who they accused.
The Caroline
Books lead to a council being held at Frankfurt in 794. This council
devoted its attention to the question of veneration due to images and the
claims of the Second Council of Nicaea (which is the same as saying the
Seventh) to being an Ecumenical Synod. The second canon of this synod
reads: “The question was brought forward concerning the recent synod which
the Greeks had held at Constantinople concerning the adoration of images,
that all should be judged as worthy of anathema who did not pay to the
images of the Saints service and adoration as to the Divine Trinity. Our
most holy fathers rejected with scorn and in every way such adoration and
service, and unanimously condemned it.”
Now for a
synod held to examine such important matters they should have done their
homework beforehand so that at least they would have got their facts
right. The recent synod they are referring to was not held at
Constantinople but in Nicaea. What was held in Constantinople was the mock
council. It seems these two synods were completely mixed in their minds.
Another grave mistake was that neither of the synods decreed that the
service and adoration due to the Holy Trinity was to be given to the
images of the saints.
The fathers of
the Frankfurt synod often made profession of acting under the obedience of
the Roman Pontiff and even Charlemagne in his letter to the Spanish
bishops said that in the first place he had consulted the pontiff of the
Apostolic See and that “I am united to the Apostolic See, and to the
ancient Catholic traditions which have come down from the beginning of the
new-born Church.” If that were the case how could they condemn the very
sacred Synod of Nicaea which had been confirmed by the Apostolic See of
Rome? When the Pope received the Caroline Books and the acts of the
Frankfurt Synod, he rejected the condemnation of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council.
If Charlemagne
had intended to discredit Irene and the Greek Church he only succeeded in
showing that the Franks lacked the sharpness and theological
understandings of the Byzantines. They were not aware of the
Christological dimensions of the Icon and this was probably due to the
fact that they never had to fight against the Monophysite heresies and
Islamic influences. He also succeeded in worsening the relations between
east and west.
Back at
Constantinople, things were not all roses. Although Irene was the Empress
and was even officially called Emperor, her son Constantine the VI was the
official Emperor. When he came of age, he showed that he was a weak and
cruel man, an incompetent commander of troops and a man afraid of
responsibility: Irene had no intention of giving up her authority. He
tried by force to overthrow her, but without success and in 797 she
removed him from the throne by ordering his blinding.
In the west
following lengthy negotiations and preparations the new Pope Leo III
crowned Charlemagne as Emperor in Rome, on Christmas day of 800. They
claimed that the Imperial throne was vacant since the Emperor Constantine
had been overthrown by his mother. Constantinople refused to recognize
Charlemagne’s crowning and denounced it.
In 802, in
order to reach a compromise, Charlemagne and the Pope dispatched to
Constantinople ambassadors who brought a marriage proposal between
Charlemagne and Irene. The ambassadors' message said that that was the
best way for the two parts of the Roman Empire to become again united. But
the proposal had come too late: in October 802 Irene was forced to
abdicate, she was succeeded by a competent top bureaucrat Nicephorus.
Nicephorus Logothete as he was known and his successor Michael Rhangabe
remained loyal to the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In
Constantinople the monasteries were again becoming centres of religion and
power, most notable the monastery called the Studion with its abbots Plato
and his nephew St. Theodore. After the death of the Patriarch Tarasius a
simple lay hermit again called Nicephorus was elected as Patriarch. The
monks protested claiming that the election was not canonical. When the New
Patriarch by orders of the Emperor violated Church regulations by
restoring to the Church a previously excommunicated priest on his own
authority, St. Theodore and the Studite monks broke communion with the
Patriarch and were imprisoned.
In 813
Bulgarian military leaders overthrew the Emperor Michael and set Leo V the
Armenian on the throne who was an Iconoclast. He didn’t immediately impose
his beliefs, but after a year in 814 he demanded the patriarch to either
prohibit the liturgical veneration of Icons or prove that they were
legitimate. There doesn’t seem to be much of a debate because the
Patriarch Nicephorus was exiled and replaced with a layman Theodore in
815. The New Patriarch quickly called a council at Agia Sophia and
confirmed the Iconoclastic mock council of 754 and rejected the Seventh.
He then prohibited the veneration of Icons and the Second Iconoclastic
period began. This time however, the Orthodox opposition was more solid
with St. Theodore the Studite as the new defender of the images. He
organized a procession for Palm Sunday in which 1000 monks carrying Icons
took part. St. Theodore was summoned to the council of Agia Sophia, but he
refused to go as long as the legitimate Patriarch was exiled. As a result
Theodore himself was exiled.
St.
Theodore is also well known for his treatise that he wrote on the Holy
Icons. He took all the arguments used by the Iconoclasts and answered them
with the Orthodox answers formulated by the fathers and especially those
formulated by St. John of Damascus, but he also went one step further. The
Iconoclasts claimed that any image of Christ must be of the same nature as
Christ, so his image portrayed both his human and divine natures which was
absurd. St. Theodore defined how the natures are not portrayed at all, but
that the Icon shares in the Hypostasis of the person. In Orthodox doctrine
God has one essence (nature) and three hypostasis (persons). Christ and
the Holy Spirit have the same nature as the Father. Christ on the other
hand also became a human so that he also has a human nature. But now in
the human form Christ is not a different person, he is still the second
person of the Holy Trinity. Christ has two natures but only one hypostasis
in other words he is only one person. In helping us to understand how the
Icon participates in the hypostasis and not the nature, St.Theodore the
Studite gave us an example by using the image of a seal on a ring and its
imprint. He said that if we take a ring which has carved upon it the image
of the Emperor and make an imprint with the ring in wax or clay, the
imprint would be the same n both the wax and the clay, but the two would
still be different from each other because they are made of different
materials. The wax has the image of the Emperor but it is still wax, and
the clay has the image of the Emperor but it is still clay. In this same
way, they are also different from the ring, which is the original
(prototype). Neither the wax nor the clay image can be the ring; the only
thing that all three share together is the image of the Emperor. It is the
same with Christ and His Icon: the Icon is the image, or as in the case
with the ring, it is the imprint, but it cannot be more than this, that
is, it cannot be His human body or His divine nature.
In 820 Leo the
Armenian was murdered by his own soldiers, and was replaced by the equally
impious though tolerant emperor Michael II Traulos (the Stammerer). The
new emperor freed all the Orthodox Fathers and confessors from prison, but
he prohibited icon veneration in the capital. He was himself an
Iconoclast, but he wanted to reconcile the Orthodox and Iconoclasts by
bringing them together in a council. St. Theodore refused to meet his
enemies and demanded that the question of Icons should be submitted to the
judgement of old Rome. In his letter to the western emperor Louis the
Pious, Michael wrote that he allowed the use of holy images but refused to
venerate them liturgically, which he felt was a practice that had
degenerated into superstition. A council was held in Paris in 825 which
was acceptable to both emperors but not to the Pope who was at that time
Pascal I. What happened at this synod is not altogether clear, but its
seems that this council also rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Council
accepted by the Pope and further charged the Pontiff with having commanded
men to adore superstitiously images and asking the reigning Pontiff to
correct the errors of his predecessors.
The emperor
Michael the Stammerer died and was succeeded by his son Theophilus in 829.
Theophilus was considered a brilliant army leader, a good administrator, a
great builder and art lover, but he lacked understanding when it came to
religious matters. Probably influenced by the Patriarch John the
Grammarian, he convoked a council in 832 to be held in the Church of the
Mother of God known as Blachernae in Constantinople. The council was again
called to renew the Iconoclastic decrees. The Orthodox responded by
arguing the legitimacy of the liturgical veneration of Icons. The other
Patriarchs of the east also responded by sending a letter to the emperor
which was a treatise in favour of Icons. Irritated by this opposition
Theophilus took measures to rid the churches and private homes of Icons
and once again the prisons were filled with bishops monks and
iconographers. The persecution however was limited to the capital and the
surrounding area.
Theophilus
died in 842 and with him died the Iconoclast persecution. Power passed
into the hands of his wife Theodora and her three year old son Michael.
Throughout the persecution Theodora had remained faithful to Orthodoxy and
had secretly venerated icons. She wanted to re-establish the Icons in the
Churches, but first had to overcome certain obstacles. After a year of
preparations, Theodora convoked a Council and when the Patriarch John the
Grammarian refused to take part, she had him deposed and replaced by
Methodius who was a confessor of Orthodoxy and highly regarded in
Constantinople. The council proclaimed the canons of all the Seven
Ecumenical Councils and proved the legitimacy of venerating Icons. The
Iconoclasts and all heretics were finally condemned. The only thing that
Theodora asked for was that the memory of her husband should not be
blackened with an anathema which she was granted. With the final victory
of the Orthodox there remained only one more thing to do and that was to
celebrate this great event. A great feast to celebrate this victory took
place on the first Sunday of Lent, March 11, 843. This feast is still
celebrated by the Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Lent each year,
which is called the Sunday of Orthodoxy or the Sunday of the Triumph of
Orthodoxy. The Church continues to celebrate this feast because it was not
only the Icon that was being defended, but also the very dogma of the
Incarnation [the church’s beliefs concerning God becoming man]. The Icon
is directly connected to this dogma, which is the very foundation of
Christianity and which all our hopes of salvation depend on.
The Orthodox
Church is often called the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and
although today some in the west have rejected it, it was accepted as being
Ecumenical by both the Greek and Latin Churches for more than a thousand
years. In 869 a Council was held in Constantinople, which both east and
west then considered to be the Eighth of the Ecumenical Synods. The
council was not called to deal with Icons but to restore peace within the
Church. A few years before in 857 the Patriarch Ignatius had been deposed
from office and in his place Photius was enthroned as Patriarch. Soon,
however, discord arose within the Church, stirred up by the removal of
Patriarch Ignatius from office. There followed councils that reinstated
Ignatius and others that deposed him and accepted Photius. We don’t have
time to look deeper into the conflict between Ignatuis, Photius and the
Pope even though it is important because it involved the use of the
Filioque in the creed by the Pope in Bulgaria which was being baptized by
both Greek and Latin clergy. For the moment we will limit ourselves to the
fact that this Council accepted not only the teachings of the Second of
Nicaea, but also its rank and number.
Ten years
later, another synod was again held in Constantinople which restored
Photius and which was accepted by many Easterns as the Eighth Ecumenical
Council. This synod again fully acknowledged the position of the Second of
Nicaea. So after a hundred years from the meeting of the Seventh Synod,
and despite all opposition, it was universally recognized and revered even
by those who were rapidly drifting apart as were the East and West in the
time of Photius and his successors. But even after the Great Schism of
1054, the west during the Council of Lyons in 1274 accepted all Seven
Synods as a basis for union.
|
|
|