But that council said a person must believe that exact statement about Mary or they were (or should be) cursed and were not a Christian.
Context is necessary. The context of the 2nd Council of Nicea was that the emperor, Leo, had began a violent "reform" because he had become convinced that the reason the Roman (Byzantine) Empire had been losing battles (and territories) against the Muslims had to be because of some theological reason. At this time in history Islam was still quite new, and most Christians had not yet really grasped that Islam was a new religion altogether, but instead seemed to think that Islam was a heretical branch of Christianity. So from Leo's perspective the big religious difference was that Muslims rejected images completely, but Christians had images. So Leo sought to literally remove and destroy all images of Christ, of Mary, of the saints, everything. This image-smashing was called iconoclasm (literally image-smashing).
And it became a really huge deal. Because theologians at the time realized that the Iconoclasts weren't simply threatening physical images, but the underlying theology undermined the core and essential teachings of the Christian faith:
That Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. Like all previous councils, the core issue was a matter of
Christology.
If Christ cannot be depicted as a man, because He is God, then the very doctrine of the Incarnation is threatened:
Because God became man.
The relevant canon of Nicea II is sandwiched between statements concerning Christ. The point of the Marian canon is not to elevate Mary to deific status, but to assert her unique position as the mother of Jesus Christ. With roots in the solid affirmation that Jesus Christ is one undivided Person, both God and man; and so Mary is called Theotokos (God-bearer) because the Person who she conceived and carried to term in her womb, and gave birth to, is Himself God--the uncreated, eternal, Almighty God. Mary's importance had always been understood, so when the canon says:
"If anyone shall not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible," It does not mean that Mary is divine, it says she is to be regarded higher than every creature, not that she isn't herself a creature. And her status is not because she has divinity, or is deserving of worship;
but because she is the mother of Jesus Christ. Mary's special place in the history of redemption is to be celebrated and revered, because she gave birth to the Eternal Word, the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord.
And also, "and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bore him, let him be anathema." Is again attached to this phrase: "since she bore him", it is Mary's unique connection to Christ-God, as His mother, that is being celebrated and honored here.
The emphases here are rooted in their Christological tradition: Jesus Christ is true God and man.
The statement is not "Worship Mary", but rather it condemns those who would deny that Mary is the birth-mother of Jesus Christ our God, who would ignore the fact that as His mother she does have a special place among the saints, and that she does pray for us. That Mary prays for us isn't a radical notion, since Scripture itself states that both the saints and angels pray for those on earth:
"
Then the angel of the Lord said, 'O Lord of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?'" - Zechariah 1:12
"
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried with a loud voice, "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?'" - Revelation 6:9-10
Do I think the anathema is an immutable and infallible pronouncement? No.
Do I think I'm under a curse because I don't petition Mary or any of the saints for their prayers? No.
Do I think anyone else is? No.
Do I think the strong language made sense in the context of the times because what was really at stake wasn't what people thought about Mary, but because of the importance of affirming true doctrine concerning Jesus Christ? Mostly, yes.
I don't regard the canons to be some sort of immutable or infallible standard. The canons have changed and been amended over the course of history--they aren't infallible, divinely ordained, etc. They are rulings from the councils that address important matters that are primarily relevant for the time.
One of the canons from the First Council of Nicea says that if a catechumen was among those who lapsed during the time of persecution of Diocletian they are to spend three years as "hearers", forbidden from joining in the prayers of the other catechumens. The point was a discipline for those who had betrayed their faith lapsing during persecution, and so their period of discipleship was put on temporary hold until they showed themselves dedicated and repentant. Is this a timeless, eternal, divinely ordained discipline? No, of course not.
But that's the point. The canons are rulings put forward by councils to address certain issues, largely issues that are highly context-sensitive to the time and even location.
-CryptoLutheran