The Orthodox Pages

email: pater@christopherklitou.com 

TALK ON THE SEVEN

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS PART 2 

27th October 2011

Homepage

 

   Back                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week we looked at the first Six Ecumenical Councils which were called to deal with matters of faith and especially the many heresies that troubled the Church and which had to be officially condemned to safeguard the true faith and the teaching of salvation.
Today it remains for us to see the Seventh and last of the Ecumenical Council which was called to condemn the Iconoclast Controversy which caused so much tension and hatred within the Church. The Seventh Ecumenical Council took place in 787AD, but the war against Icons started some 60 years before and continued after the Council for another 45 years. So for more than a hundred years, Icons were at the centre of a religious war.
For us Orthodox, it is important that we understand what Icons are and what they represent and teach especially in our times when many modern churches teach against them saying that it's a form of idolatry. We all therefore need to understand why we venerate and kiss Icons so that we can defend ourselves when faced with these accusations. Thus, before we look at the history of the Iconoclast controversy and the results of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, we should look at the accusation of idolatry which we often hear from those who don't understand what the Icon is.
The accusation of idolatry is based on the second of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses and the children of Israel. The commandment in the KJV reads: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” [Exodus 20: 4-5].
When reading Holy Scripture we must be careful not to take a verse and isolate it from the rest of Scripture. With this commandment we should try to understand why God gave such a command and the meaning to the commandment, because it is wrong to apply the commandment to every image.
Graven image is used as a translation of the Greek word είδωλο, meaning an idol, which specifically refers to a carved image in wood or stone that was used in pagan religious worship. The commandment is clear that no idol is to be manufactured having any likeness of anything that is in heaven, or on earth or in the sea. Note that the commandment refers to an idol created to be worshipped as a god and not for every form of images. If it refers to all kinds of images then God contradicts himself because a little later he gives another charge to Moses saying: “Thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat”. The mercy seat was to be placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant. Solomon used this same ordinance when building the temple: “and within the oracle he made two cherubim of olive tree each ten cubits high” [1 Kings 6: 23]. Again, in Numbers 21: 8, the Lord said unto Moses, “Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole”.

Is God then contradicting himself? On the one hand, he tells us not to make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven, on earth and in the sea and then on the other hand he tells Moses and Solomon to make images of Cherubim and a serpent. It is therefore obvious from these exceptions found in the Old Testament that God only prohibited images that were to be used as idols of gods or even as images that would represent Himself. Images other than idols were permissible because they were not images intended to be worshipped as a god. The commandment therefore had a twofold purpose: a practical and a theological. The practical purpose was to protect the Israelites from polytheism and pagan worship which was the common practice amongst other nations of that time such as the Egyptians and Assyrians. Believing in an invisible God was difficult and there was always the possibility that through encounters with other nations, the Israelites would become influenced by their religious practices and would sooner or later demand to make an image that would act as a visual aid in their worship. This is where the second and theological purpose of the commandment is revealed.
God is uncreated and invisible and therefore indescribable and therefore cannot be represented in any form. To show Him in any form whatsoever would have been a false image, because the invisible and Absolute Being of God, cannot be described by created matter. God was not only invisible and indescribable; He was also uncircumscribable. This means that He was everywhere, in everyplace and without being confined to any boundaries in any given time. Let us imagine that an image of God was made; we would then be able to draw a circle around this image, thus making it possible to say that God is within that circle. This circle would form a boundary and would limit God to that space alone. God cannot be confined to any boundary, He reaches beyond all creation and beyond our understanding.
But this theological understanding belongs to the Old Testament. With the Birth of Christ, the theological understanding of this law is no longer true. If, as we believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate, in other words God in the flesh, then the Old Testament Law forbidding images is replaced by a new law in Christ. Why? Because whereas before God was uncreated, invisible and indescribable, now He has become as one of His creatures: a man visible and describable, and whereas before God was uncircumscribable, now He has made Himself circumscribable. With the Old Law God could not be described by created matter because no one had seen God, but now God is visible for all to see.
The Icon therefore is an image of God in his human form. The word Icon should not be misunderstood. It is only an English transliteration of the Greek word Εικόνα which simply means an image. In this sense man is an icon of God because he was created in the image of God. All pictures are icons but when we refer to images of Christ and the saints we call them Holy Icons, simply meaning Holy Images.
Orthodox understand Holy Icons as inanimate objects which act as a medium by which God works to teach, speak, encourage and heal the faithful. This is not something new or unbiblical: created matter was used by God for this purpose even in the Old Testament. The Bronze Snake for example which God commanded Moses to make was a medium through which God gave his grace and power to heal those bitten by real snakes. God told Moses: "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
Similarly the Ark of the Covenant is described as the ritual object where God was present. God said to Moses: "there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony." (Exodus 25:22) Also the Ten Commandments written on the stone tablets were the Word of God and acted as a medium for God's grace and power.
As already noted, the Old Law on images lost its theological meaning when God became man and, from the very beginning of the Christian Church, the Icon became a statement proclaiming the Incarnation which we will see as we progress and see how the Church defended the need for Icons in liturgical use.
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 it had a doctrinal significance and was essential in teaching the true dogma on the incarnation and on man’s salvation. The full dogmatic and theological meaning of the Icon will be revealed during the Seventh Ecumenical Council and in the years that followed. Let's now see how the Iconoclast movement began and the terrible years of persecution that divided the Church into those who honoured the Icon and those who warred against it.
The word Iconoclast means icon smashers and is used for those who waged war against the Icon while the word Iconodule meaning a servant of the Icons is used to identify those who venerated the Icon and fought to preserve its liturgical use.
Leo III became emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire on 25th March 717. The new emperor was immediately forced to attend to the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, which commenced in August of the same year and lasted for 12 months. Leo is believed to have been born in the Syrian province of Commagene, but according to the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes, his family were then resettled in Thrace. It is possible that Leo had been exposed to Moslem influences and was probably also influenced by the Monophysite heresy which was very strong in the Eastern provinces.
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. Whether this move by the Caliph influenced Leo to do the same cannot be verified, but Islam and Christianity were coming face to face and could find common ground in the prohibition of images of the Old Testament Law. The dates of Yazid’s edict (723) and Leo’s open war against Icons (726) have only three years between them that it cannot be ruled out as just a matter of coincidence.
Another factor which may have led to Leo’s decision to openly oppose the Icon was the growing abuse of the Icon especially among the lower classes who regarded it as having supernatural powers. The late sixth and seventh centuries saw a marked intensification in the use of images and honour was mistakenly substituted by worship. The extent of the veneration of images caused considerable anxiety and concern to some Christian leaders especially from Asia Minor. Leo must also have shared in this concern and must have had the conviction that Icons where a form of idolatry.
Certainly relations with the Muslims would be improved if the Old Testament prohibition on images was imposed so Leo set about reforming the Empire and ridding 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 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. 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 become 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.
There are different kinds of honour and honour should not be misinterpreted as worship. The Old Testament has many examples of honour which have nothing in common with worship or the adoration of God. Jacob bowed to the ground before Esau, his brother, and also before the tip of his son Joseph's staff (Genesis 33:3). He bowed down in honour but he did not bow down in worship or adoration. Joshua, the Son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in veneration before an angel of God (Joshua 5:14) but they did not adore him. Adoration is one thing, and honour is just a form of respect.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council unanimously decreed that the Icon was to be honoured in a manner similar to the precious and vivifying cross, and that Icons of Christ, the Mother of God, the Angels and all the Saints made of any other suitable material, whether painted or mosaic, should be placed in the Holy Churches of God, upon sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, houses and streets. Because the more often and frequent their representation in an image is seen, the more those who see them are led to remember the originals which they represent. By seeing the Icon a person identifies with the person it represents and the soul grows to love them more. The Council also declared that people are to kiss them and pay them honorary veneration, not the true adoration which according to our faith, is proper only to God, but in the same way veneration is given to the image of the precious cross, the Holy Gospels and other sacred objects. The Council also noted that 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 praising 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 Seventh Council 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. 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 in 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.