|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
