|
|
This coming Sunday,
the first Sunday of Great Lent is called the Sunday of Orthodoxy or the
Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. On this day the Church commemorates
the victory over Iconoclasm and the restoration of the veneration of the
Icons which occurred on 11 March 843 in Constantinople. The Feast has
nothing to do with the spirit and meaning of Lent. Its celebration on this
day is purely historical as the first celebration of this Feast in 843
actually took place on the first Sunday of Lent and the Orthodox Church
has ever since continued to celebrate this feast every year on the same
Sunday. This victory of Orthodoxy was in fact much more than just the a
victory over those who opposed the veneration of Icons; it was a victory
over all the many heresies that the Church over the centuries had to fight
to preserve the true teachings concerning who Jesus Christ was and how his
divine and human natures were interpreted and understood. Thus at the
centre of the dispute was the 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. For us to fully understand the deeper
meaning of the feast we need to be aware of the many heresies that
troubled the Church in the preceding centuries so today we will have a
historical and theology lesson. To do this we must go back to the very
beginnings of these different understandings that developed and
continually divided the Church into two camps. Without mentioning all the
heresies which are very many and confusing, I think it would be easier for
you to understand their theological approach. In the early Church there
were two rival catechetical Schools, those of Alexandria and Antioch. Both
played an important part in the understanding of who Jesus was but each
using a different approach. So let’s first see the School of Alexandria.
Alexandria
itself was founded by Alexander the Great in 332BC, and it became the
second most important city of the ancient world. It was a point where east
and west met and it took pride in its famous library and its reputation as
the centre for Greek philosophy and learning. It was here in 285BC that
the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Septuagint Greek making
them widely accessible to the Greek speaking Jews of the dispersion.
Almost three hundred years later an Alexandrian philisopher Philo, a
Hellenic Jew (c. 25 BC-AD 40) strove to integrate Greek philosophy with
Judaism; and early Christians, by following his lead, worked to integrate
Greek philosophy with Christianity.
The renowned
catechetical school in Alexandria was greatly influenced by Platonism and
Stoicism and one of its early leaders Clement of Alexandria (c.155-220)
taught that just as God gave the Law to the Jews, so he gave philosophy to
the Greeks - as an instrument to lead them to Christ. God’s eternal Word
(Logos) was the source of both. He believed the truth was to be found in
Scripture, but sometimes it was hidden, and could only be discovered
through allegorical interpretation. Clement was succeeded by his young
pupil Origen (185-254), who presided over the Alexandrian school for the
next thirty years. He lived an ascetic life and took his asceticism to the
extremes by taking the Lord’s counsel in the literal sense and having
himself castrated (Matth. 19:12) to avoid any possible scandal while
giving private instruction to women catechumens. Origen’s writings were
some of the most influential in the early church. Origen taught that
Scripture had a threefold meaning or in other words it had three levels of
interpretation - Literal, moral, and spiritual meanings which corresponded
to the human body, soul, and spirit. The “simple man” may be edified by
the “flesh” of Scripture, in other words the literal meaning of the
historical events which was for him the least important for the Christian,
just as the body was less important than the soul or spirit. The man who
has ascended a certain way may be edified by the “soul” and the perfect
man may be edified by “spiritual law”. Thus because the historical events
were the least important the Alexandrian philosophical approach adapted a
theology that stressed the divine aspect of the unity of Christ sometimes
at the expense of His humanity, which portrayed a Christ whose humanity
was absorbed by His divinity. This teaching lead to various monophysite
heresies where Christ was no longer seen as having two natures, a human
and divine, but only one divine nature.
From
Alexandria we have the Arian heresy named after an Alexandrian priest
Arius who taught that the Eternal Son was inferior to the Father denying
him the Divine Nature of God, and taught that Jesus Christ was a mere
creature. Arius and his teaching were condemned at the First Ecumenical
Council of Nicaea in 325.
Next in
importance was Apollinaris who was bishop of Laodicea in Syria but
represented the Alexandrian school of thought. He attributed to Christ a
human body and an animal soul, but he did not ascribe him a human rational
soul, as the seat of rationality and intelligence. Instead of a human
rational soul, the divine Word of God took its place and was the divine
nature in Christ. Thus Christ was not completely human. Apollinaris was a
strong opponent of Arius but arrived at a similar view of the Person of
Christ as Arius. Apollinaris was strongly opposed by Gregory of Nazianzus
as well as the Antiochian school, but was also denounced by many
subsequent synods.
Lets now see
the Antiochian School. The Antiochian school seemed to have been more
influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle. It developed a literal approach
in the explanation of Scripture and theology rather than the allegorical
approach of Alexandria and emphasised the human nature of Christ rather
than the divine and put great weight on the human experiences of Christ’s
temptations and sufferings.
But as
Alexandria’s overemphasis of the divine led to heresies which denied
Christ a human rational soul, the Antiochians overemphasis of the human
led to heresies which denied him his divinity. Thus from Antioch we have
heresies such as Adoptionism and Nestorianism. There were different types
of Adoptionism but basically what they taught was that Christ was born an
ordinary man and at some point in his life God adopted him as his son. For
example, Paul of Samosata was bishop of Antioch from AD260-272. He
subscribed to an Adoptionism heresy which taught that Jesus was an
ordinary man, born of Mary and Joseph and that at his baptism the Spirit
or Christ descended upon Jesus and then at his crucifixion the Christ
departed, leaving the man Jesus to suffer alone. Thus Christ did not
become one in substance with God, but when he was raised from the dead was
given a kind of delegated divinity. Paul of Samosata was excommunicated by
a synod held in Antioch in 269.
Nestorianism
is named after Nestorius who as a presbyter of Antioch was then made
Patriarch of Constantinople in AD 428. His teaching had divided the person
of Christ into two and he was unwilling to call the Blessed Virgin
Theotokos – Mother of God. He held that Mary could only be called
Christotokos - the mother of Christ the man for she did not give birth to
the divine pre-eternal Son of God.
Thus for the
first few centuries the Church had to battle which the teachings that
developed from the two Schools which when taken too far always led to
heresy. When the Church finally defined the true teaching then another
problem arose concerning the will and action of Christ which it fact was
just an extension or another side of the Monophysite heresies. It short it
claimed that if Christ had only the divine nature then he only had one
will and action – the divine, thus denying him of any human attributes
other than just a human body. The heresy came to be known as Monothelite
meaning one will. When the Monothelite teaching was also finally defeated,
all the various heresies had to find another course to attack the true
teaching of the Church. This route was found in the Icon. It should be
noted that even after the Church had defined the true teachings concerning
the human and divine elements in Christ, there were still many Bishops who
secretly subscribed to the Monophysite, Monothelite and Nestorian
heresies, but kept silent for fear of being deposed. Many Emperors also
were caught up in the Christological disputes and were often influenced by
these heresies. Another thing we must keep in mind is that for the first
five centuries Icons were accepted but with reservations and many felt
that the Old Testament commandment which forbade any kind of graven image
should be observed to avoid the spread of superstitious practices
associated with Icons and which many people believed had magical powers.
At this time the
opponents of the Icon believed that the Church should stress her worship
in spirit and in truth and avoid any kind of material objects that could
lead to idolatry. Thus Icons always had its opponents in the Church
especially from those with a puritan outlook who thought of Icons as an
influence from the old Greek world 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.
At the
beginning of the eight century another problem was also facing the
Byzantine Empire – the Muslim faith and their increasing power. Some
eastern territories like Syria and Egypt where now under Muslim control
and Caliph Yazid II ordered the removal of all Icons from his territory.
The two religions were now coming face to face and as both shared the Old
Testament there was common ground to build on to keep peace between the
two religions. The Muslims favoured the Monophysite and Nestorian Churches
and in AD 725 the Emperor Leo III, who was originally from Syria and was
brought up in the Monophysite Jacobite Church, felt that relations with
the Muslims could be improved if the Old Testament prohibition on images
was imposed. He was a firm believer that Icons where a form of idolatry,
and 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 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. 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 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. It is this victory that we celebrate
every year on the first Sunday of Lent. The feast then is a celebration of
the victory of the true faith over all the heresies and errors that the
Church has had to do battle with. At the end of the Liturgy the priest
will stand by the royal Doors and say in a loud voice: “A yearly
thanksgiving is due to God on account of that day when we recovered the
Church of God, with the manifestation of the pious dogmas and the
overthrowing of the blasphemies of wickedness.” After this a procession
with the holy Icons is made around the Church and at intervals the priests
says petitions on behalf of all those that defended the Orthodox faith.
When he reaches the main entrance again, he reads extracts from the
synodical decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The service is said in
an abbreviated form leaving out the 60 anathemas against the various
heretics from the third to the fourteenth century.
|
|
|