The Anathemas against The Image Breakers from The Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 A.D.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, Let Him Be Accursed. O Lord, come!
• 1 Corinthians 16:22


.

Click to expand...

I find in the scriptures we are given a choice. It's even in the Old Testament.

There was Adam, and there was Eve.

There was Cain, and there was Abel

There was Saul, and there was David.

There was Jesus, and beside Him there is no other, because He is God.

James illustrated the choice between the old testament law and the law of liberty, apparently judging with mercy gets you a better judgment, and judging without mercy nets you the same. I'm a little concerned for those who pronounced these curses. However, as Jesus said Himself, forgive them, they knew not what they did.

Since this sin is ancient and the transgressor is no longer alive, I confess the sins as my own and my own in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The ancient stain no longer needs to remain.

May there be judgment with mercy. Amen.

D.A. Wright said:

How convenient.

Click to expand...

D.A. Wright said:

Oh, by the way:

You shall not make to you 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. You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
(Exodus 20:4-6)

Click to expand...

D.A. Wright said:

I don't mean to get spammy, but you can hardly expect to post as you did unchallenged.

Click to expand...

While I understand your appeal to the commandment, you should read the defense of Iconography that actually won the 7th council. From our perspective, Christ's incarnation into flesh made God visable to all mankind, and therefore re presentable. The 3rd commandment was written at a time before God was made visible. To try to represent the invisible Father would be to take away from his Glory. That is why it is Orthodox cannon that we shouldn't paint the Father. However Christ was here among us. God seen by human individuals by their own eyes. He could be touched, smelled, seen, and heard.

For us, Iconography is a declaration of the incarnation by showing that Christ is both Man and God, and the way to heaven opened. Forgive my Orthodox brother here for his... zealotry.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

• Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.


You get an Anathema, You get an Anathema , You get an Anathema :

^^^ This gif is supposed to be for humor ^^^


.

Click to expand...

There is nothing funny about a Holy Curse. OP perhaps you should avoid these type of discussions unless you have an actual debate to back them up. You make the Orthodox appear as though we are only here to promote dogma, which is NOT what Holy Tradition is about. You sound as the pharisees, judging those who disagree with you without providing evidence why. You need to explain WHY the councils are authoritative. Do so with Love however.

I might also add, that it is not your place, as I assume you are a layperson, to direct Anathema against others whether they are already pronounced or otherwise.

from On Holy Images (c. 730)

Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,-that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. Blessed Denis, [note: the Pseudo-Dionysius] who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images arc marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before tbey came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, , is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance.
Again, an image is expressive of something in the future, mystically shadowing forth what is to happen. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, Mother of God, so does the staff and the earthen jar. The serpent brings before us Him who vanquished on the Cross the bite of the original serpent; the sea, -water, and the cloud the grace of baptism.

Again, things which have taken place are expressed by images for the remembrance either of a wonder, or an honour, or dishonour, or good or evil, to help those who look upon it in after times that we may avoid evils and imitate goodness. It is of two kinds, the written image in books, as when God had the law inscribed on tablets, and when He enjoined that the lives of holy men should be recorded and sensible memorials be preserved in remembrance; as, for instance, the earthen jar and the staff in the ark. So now we preserve in writing the images and the good deeds of the past. Either, therefore, take away images altogether and be out of harmony with God ,who made these regulations, or receive them with the language and in the manner which befits them. In speaking of the manner let us go into the question of worship.

Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be savs, "Let us go to the place where His feet have stood." Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. Joseph was worshipped bv his brothers. I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. Either, then, do awav with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure.

Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-scat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." But the law ,-,,as not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, the law, contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things. For if the law should forbid images, and vet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle 'was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.

I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit.

from St. John Damascene On Holy Images

from The Fount of Wisdom

But since some find fault with us for worshipping and honouring the image of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. On what grounds, then, do we shew reference to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil (the Great, c. 330-379), that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honour given to the image passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from that which the derivative is obtained. WhN, was it that the Mosaic people honoured on all bands the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenlv things, or rather of the whole creation? Go d indeed said to Moses, "Look that thou make them after their pattern which was shewed thee in the mount." The Cherubim, too, which overshadow the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's bands? What, further, is the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Is it not handmade and fashioned by the skill of men?
Moreover the divine Scripture blames those -who worship graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed: but the Greeks to demons and the Jews to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemncd, but the sacrifice of the just was very acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and "God smelled a sweet savour", receiving the fragrance of the right choice and goodwill towards Him. And so the craven images of the Greeks, since then, were images of deities, were rejected and forbidden.

But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not uncommon. But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? it is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things.

A certain tale, too, is told, how that when Augarus [ie. Abgar V (4BCE-50CE), King of Edessa and a reputed correspondent of Christ] was king over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait painter to paint a likeness of the Lord, and when the painter could not paint because of the brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord Himself put a garment over His own divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of Himself and sent this to Augarus, to satisfy thus his desire.

Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and bold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle." And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you."

trans S.D.F. Salmon in John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

☦Marius☦ said:

from The Fount of Wisdom

But since some find fault with us for worshipping and honouring the image of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. On what grounds, then, do we shew reference to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil (the Great, c. 330-379), that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honour given to the image passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from that which the derivative is obtained. WhN, was it that the Mosaic people honoured on all bands the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenlv things, or rather of the whole creation? Go d indeed said to Moses, "Look that thou make them after their pattern which was shewed thee in the mount." The Cherubim, too, which overshadow the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's bands? What, further, is the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Is it not handmade and fashioned by the skill of men?
Moreover the divine Scripture blames those -who worship graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed: but the Greeks to demons and the Jews to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemncd, but the sacrifice of the just was very acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and "God smelled a sweet savour", receiving the fragrance of the right choice and goodwill towards Him. And so the craven images of the Greeks, since then, were images of deities, were rejected and forbidden.

But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not uncommon. But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? it is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things.

A certain tale, too, is told, how that when Augarus [ie. Abgar V (4BCE-50CE), King of Edessa and a reputed correspondent of Christ] was king over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait painter to paint a likeness of the Lord, and when the painter could not paint because of the brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord Himself put a garment over His own divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of Himself and sent this to Augarus, to satisfy thus his desire.

Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and bold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle." And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you."

trans S.D.F. Salmon in John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Click to expand...

Thanks for adding a more EO sound to the thread.

What's the deal with those anathemas? Does the EO actually still apply them?

Michael Collum said:

Thanks for adding a more EO sound to the thread.

What's the deal with those anathemas? Does the EO actually still apply them?

Click to expand...

They can only be revoked by another Ecumenical council, with the 7th being the last we held. Don't let the word scare you however. Paul uttered the first anathema, but in reality it is just an extreme form of excommunication. All it does is prevent those it applies to from communing with the Church, which in our eyes is a discipline. Anyone can repent of this (from our view) and rejoin or join Orthodoxy.

Anathemas are more directed towards those who were Orthodox to begin with and left the Church, especially those of clergy who started teaching against our doctrine. It is a formal recognition that those teachers should not be listened to if one wants to remain within Orthodoxy.

☦Marius☦ said:

They can only be revoked by another Ecumenical council, with the 7th being the last we held. Don't let the word scare you however. Paul uttered the first anathema, but in reality it is just an extreme form of excommunication. All it does is prevent those it applies to from communing with the Church, which in our eyes is a discipline. Anyone can repent of this (from our view), and rejoin or join Orthodoxy.

Anathemas are more directed towards those who were Orthodox to begin with and left the Church, especially those of clergy who started teaching against our doctrine. It is a formal recognition that those teachers should not be listened to if one wants to remain within Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Good to know.

I've had to deal with damnation curses before because I intercede in a way that blocks harm to others in the body. It can be a real pain to have to burn like that for any period of time.

Michael Collum said:

Good to know.

I've had to deal with damnation curses before because I intercede in a way that blocks harm to others in the body. It can be a real pain to have to burn like that for any period of time.

Click to expand...

Understandable. However these pronouncements come from a time when the Church was mostly unified and they were trying to keep that unity. If you read Nicene and Post Nicene Church History, you can see just how many people were teaching extremely dangerous heresies within the Church.

As for the Iconoclasts, I think it is reasonable for them to get such a treatment as the First Iconoclast Emperor and his successors persecuted those who believed in Icon usage, and many died in these persecutions. Hardly comparable to todays "Iconoclasts" who have honest intentions, but from our perspective are missing out on a helpful form of devotion.

☦Marius☦ said:

Understandable. However these pronouncements come from a time when the Church was mostly unified and they were trying to keep that unity. If you read Nicene and Post Nicene Church History, you can see just how many people were teaching extremely dangerous heresies within the Church.

As for the Iconoclasts, I think it is reasonable for them to get such a treatment as the First Iconoclast Emperor and his successors persecuted those who believed in Icon usage, and many died in these persecutions.

Click to expand...

I find when reading the councils the things said make more sense in context. I'll probably get to the seventh council sometime later this week.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

Then Joshua tore his clothes, And Fell To The Earth On His Face Before The Ark Of The Lord Until Evening, He And The Elders Of Israel; And they put dust on their heads.
• Joshua 7:6

Click to expand...

Ok I’ll ask the same question here. Why did Joshua do what he did? Was not the very Presence of YHWH in the sanctuary?

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.



.

Click to expand...

Infallibility was also the Roman Pope’s claim when the Eastern churches broke from him. It’s convenient for the one making the claim.

Also not everyone was convinced at the time:

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Hadrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). In the West, the Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at a synod in 794, and Charlemagne, then King of the Franks, supported the composition of the Libri Carolini in response, which repudiated the teachings of both the Council and the iconoclasts. A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[8]The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council is accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church.

Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

Oh, by the way:

And You Shall Make Two Cherubim Of Gold; of hammered work You Shall Make Them at the two ends of the mercy seat.
• Exodus 25:18

Click to expand...

Recommend reading Exodus. All of it.

D.A. Wright said:

Oh, By The Way:

The Sovereign of the universe, Himself gets to make exceptions to His own rules. You gotta kinda expect that.

Click to expand...

God commanded them to make like images of the Heavenly Holy Sanctuary. Why? Because YHWH made His Presence among the Israelites.

We no longer need sanctuaries made with human hands as God has manifested His Presence with the Incarnation of the Divine Logos Jesus Christ forever and ever amen.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

• Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 A.D.)

Session 1

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Nicaea



• Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to The Image Breakers.


• Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images.


• Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.


• Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods.


• Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.


• Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.


• Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord has delivered us from idols.


• Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.


• Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church has at any time sanctioned idols.


• Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers.


Seventh Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki

Click to expand...

Typical popery.
I can't accuse them of sin for violating the second commandment, but they can consign me to Hell if I don't violate it.

royal priest said:

Typical popery.
I can't accuse them of sin for violating the second commandment, but they can consign me to Hell if I don't violate it.

Click to expand...

How can you call it popery when the pope didn't exist in the modern respect at that time?

redleghunter said:

God commanded them to make like images of the Heavenly Holy Sanctuary. Why? Because YHWH made His Presence among the Israelites.

We no longer need sanctuaries made with human hands as God has manifested His Presence with the Incarnation of the Divine Logos Jesus Christ forever and ever amen.

Click to expand...

royal priest said:

Typical popery.
I can't accuse them of sin for violating the second commandment, but they can consign me to Hell if I don't violate it.

Click to expand...

I encourage you both to read posts 44-45 from St. John of Damascus. It was he who successfully defended Iconography the most, not any pope or ruler. In line with Exodus I might add. You act as if no one discussed Exodus at the Council. It was in fact the same argument made by iconoclasts at the time, and was discussed by St. John and the rest of the council. If anything more leaders at the time were pro iconoclast since the Iconoclasts had been killing Iconophiles for the past 50 years.

☦Marius☦ said:

How can you call it popery when the pope didn't exist in the modern respect at that time?

Click to expand...

I think the office was recognized at the time. The Council sent the proceedings to Pope Hadrian, and those opposed in France sent their refutation to the Pope who refuted the claims.

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Hadrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). In the West, the Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at a synod in 794, and Charlemagne, then King of the Franks, supported the composition of the Libri Carolini in response, which repudiated the teachings of both the Council and the iconoclasts. A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[8]The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council is accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church.

Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

It seems clear by the actions that the council proceedings would not be accepted by the Church Catholic until the Pope ruled on it either by acceptance, silence or refutation.

redleghunter said:

I think the office was recognized at the time. The Council sent the proceedings to Pope Hadrian, and those opposed in France sent their refutation to the Pope who refuted the claims.

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Hadrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). In the West, the Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at a synod in 794, and Charlemagne, then King of the Franks, supported the composition of the Libri Carolini in response, which repudiated the teachings of both the Council and the iconoclasts. A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[8]The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council is accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church.

Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

It seems clear by the actions that the council proceedings would not be accepted by the Church Catholic until the Pope ruled on it either by acceptance, silence or refutation.

Click to expand...

I said in respect to the modern power. At that time Rome was seen as "first among equals". There was no doctrine of infallibility or any of the later post Schism nonsense. Rome was held in high respect at the time mostly because it was the Only Pentarchal see not connected with the Eastern Roman Empire at the time, and therefore least politically motivated (at the time).

The word Pope, is equivalent to Patriarch. It is the modern interpretation that has corrupted the term. Other Churches have popes with much less power.

☦Marius☦ said:

I said in respect to the modern power. At that time Rome was seen as "first among equals". There was no doctrine of infallibility or any of the later post Schism nonsense. Rome was held in high respect at the time mostly because it was the Only Pentarchal see not connected with the Eastern Roman Empire at the time, and therefore least politically motivated (at the time).

Click to expand...

I have no argument with what you wrote above. One can come to those logical conclusions. Yet half of the Catholic Church (Roman) disagrees. Maybe some will engage you from their position. I was just offering not everyone is in agreement with this position.