Iconoclast heresy

[Xeno.of.athens]

Iconography and Liturgy, Piero Marini, 20 January 2005

www.vatican.va

2. The iconoclast crisis

The Second Council of Nicaea marked the end of a long process of reflection on the meaning and place of images in the life of the Church.

Before the beginning of the third century, there were few images in the Church. This was due to the danger of idolatrous practices widespread in the pagan world, which had already been at the basis of the Old Testament legislation forbidding the fashioning of images.

The peace of the Church at the time of Constantine had decisive consequences. As the number of baptised Christians increased, exterior signs of Christian devotion multiplied, the cult of the martyrs grew, people began to make pilgrimages, and everywhere new churches and basilicas were built. Christian art ceased to be mainly funeral iconography, unintelligible to the uninitiated, and was used to further the evangelisation of the growing numbers of Christians.

In the fourth century, for the first time in the history of the Church, voices were raised in opposition to religious images on the basis of the prohibitions contained in the Old Testament (cfr Ex 20:4; Dt 4:15-18). Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, (ca. 300 AD.), a Council of which we know relatively little, decreed that “images may not be exposed in Church;” while iconoclast statements are found in the letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to the Empress Constantia and the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. According to scholars, this first form of aversion to icons was a limited and restricted phenomenon, perhaps somewhat coloured by Arianism; there would seem to be a connection between the Arian insistence on God’s transcendence and the banning of images. However iconoclast views persisted as the centuries passed, and so other voices were raised in defence of icons. Gregory the Great (540-604) wrote that “it is not without reason that in the older Churches the lives of the saints were depicted in paintings... what Scripture is for the literate, so the image is for the illiterate... images are the books of those who do not know the Scriptures” (Letters, IX, 209).

The use of icons became more widespread in the sixth and seventh centuries, encouraged by popular faith, legends and miracles. Yet it did not spread evenly throughout Christendom; because of their cultural background, the Syrians and Armenians, for example, were much less inclined to use images. Significant, the emperors who encouraged iconoclasm were of Isaurian or Armenian origin. In 692 the Council in Trullo stated that: “in certain sacred images the Precursor is portrayed pointing to the lamb. This portrayal was used as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of the true lamb, that is Christ our God, revealed to us according to the law. Having therefore accepted these figures and shadows as symbols of the truth handed down by the Church, today we prefer grace and truth themselves as the fullness of this law. Therefore to expose by means of painting that which is perfect we decree that henceforth Christ, our God, shall be represented in his human form and not in the old form of the lamb” (Can 82). Already for the Fathers of the Council in Trullo, the image of Christ implied a confession of profound faith in the incarnation.

One factor which contributed to a hardening of positions for or against the use of icons was the advance of Islam, which claimed to be the highest and purest revelation of God, and accused the Church of polytheism and idolatry in her veneration of images. The eighth century saw the rise of heated disputes. The opening act of the first stage of the iconoclast conflict was an order, issued in 726 by the Byzantine emperor Leo III ‘the Isaurian,’ to destroy the image of Christ over the bronze gates of the imperial palace in Constantinople; the image was replaced with a cross beneath which the emperor placed the following inscription: “Since God cannot bear for Christ to be portrayed in an image without word or life and made of corruptible matter despised by Scripture, Leo and his son the new Constantine, engraved the sign of the cross, the glory of believers, on the palace gates.” That act was followed by the official promulgation of measures against images and their veneration, as well as by acts of violence directed against icons and those who venerated them. It should be recalled that these iconoclastic measures begun by Leo III came only a few years after the edict of Caliph Yedzid II to destroy images in every Christian province he conquered and attacks on Christian worship by Jews. The emperor sought a cultural compromise aimed at enabling Arabs, Christians and Jews to live in harmony by eliminating elements of conflict. Reasons of state were more important than the rights of the faith. Pope Gregory III reacted in 731 by excommunicating those opposed to icons and their cult. In the East it was mainly Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, George of Cyprus and John Damascene who defended the veneration of icons. Germanus stated that to reject icons was to reject the Incarnation; for in the icon “we depict the image of [Christ’s] human aspect in the flesh, not that of his incomprehensible and invisible divinity, because we feel the need to represent that in which we believe, in order to demonstrate that God did not embrace our nature only in appearance, as a shadow, but that he became truly man” (Letter to John of Synnada). John Damascene fought the iconoclasts at various levels. He countered the accusation that in icons a piece of wood was adored, saying: “It is not matter which I venerate, but rather the Creator of matter who became matter for me” (Discourses, I, 16), and added that icons are “the books of the illiterate” (Discourses, II, 10). However the most important argument was theological; the dogmatic foundation for the cult of icons is the Incarnation. The Word became flesh: Jesus is the human face of God and therefore we may represent Him (Discourses, I, 22). The Old Testament forbade images; in the Old Covenant God had revealed himself only by word. In the New Testament, the Word becomes an image. Psalm 47:9 was often used to defend icons: “What we have heard, we have seen.” John Damascene makes a clear distinction between the icon and the prototype which it represents. The image is the object of veneration, not adoration; the latter is reserved for God alone.

In 754 a Synod convoked at Hieria on the Bosporus at the initiative of the emperor Constantine V gave normative status to the decisions of the iconoclasts. About 388 Bishops took part, but none from the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. The Synod declared the emperors equal to the Apostles, filled with wisdom through the working of the Holy Spirit, and charged them with leading the faithful back to the right path and instructing them; it also condemned the making and the cult of icons. It insisted on the distance between the icon, a material object, and that which it claimed to make visible. It considered the Eucharist the only true image. In this way, iconoclasm, hitherto supported by an imperial edict alone, became a dogma of the whole Church.

In the two decades that followed, the monks, the chief promoters of icons, were violently persecuted; numerous monasteries were confiscated, their monks were forced to join the imperial army, and some were tortured. In 769 Pope Stephen convoked a Synod at the Lateran which anathematised the Synod at Hieria; the Patriarchs of the East, Theodore of Jerusalem, Theodore of Antioch and Cosmas of Alexandria also rejected the decisions made at Hieria.

 

[HTacianas]

Iconography and Liturgy, Piero Marini, 20 January 2005

www.vatican.va

2. The iconoclast crisis

The Second Council of Nicaea marked the end of a long process of reflection on the meaning and place of images in the life of the Church.

Before the beginning of the third century, there were few images in the Church. This was due to the danger of idolatrous practices widespread in the pagan world, which had already been at the basis of the Old Testament legislation forbidding the fashioning of images.

The peace of the Church at the time of Constantine had decisive consequences. As the number of baptised Christians increased, exterior signs of Christian devotion multiplied, the cult of the martyrs grew, people began to make pilgrimages, and everywhere new churches and basilicas were built. Christian art ceased to be mainly funeral iconography, unintelligible to the uninitiated, and was used to further the evangelisation of the growing numbers of Christians.

In the fourth century, for the first time in the history of the Church, voices were raised in opposition to religious images on the basis of the prohibitions contained in the Old Testament (cfr Ex 20:4; Dt 4:15-18). Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, (ca. 300 AD.), a Council of which we know relatively little, decreed that “images may not be exposed in Church;” while iconoclast statements are found in the letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to the Empress Constantia and the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. According to scholars, this first form of aversion to icons was a limited and restricted phenomenon, perhaps somewhat coloured by Arianism; there would seem to be a connection between the Arian insistence on God’s transcendence and the banning of images. However iconoclast views persisted as the centuries passed, and so other voices were raised in defence of icons. Gregory the Great (540-604) wrote that “it is not without reason that in the older Churches the lives of the saints were depicted in paintings... what Scripture is for the literate, so the image is for the illiterate... images are the books of those who do not know the Scriptures” (Letters, IX, 209).

The use of icons became more widespread in the sixth and seventh centuries, encouraged by popular faith, legends and miracles. Yet it did not spread evenly throughout Christendom; because of their cultural background, the Syrians and Armenians, for example, were much less inclined to use images. Significant, the emperors who encouraged iconoclasm were of Isaurian or Armenian origin. In 692 the Council in Trullo stated that: “in certain sacred images the Precursor is portrayed pointing to the lamb. This portrayal was used as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of the true lamb, that is Christ our God, revealed to us according to the law. Having therefore accepted these figures and shadows as symbols of the truth handed down by the Church, today we prefer grace and truth themselves as the fullness of this law. Therefore to expose by means of painting that which is perfect we decree that henceforth Christ, our God, shall be represented in his human form and not in the old form of the lamb” (Can 82). Already for the Fathers of the Council in Trullo, the image of Christ implied a confession of profound faith in the incarnation.

One factor which contributed to a hardening of positions for or against the use of icons was the advance of Islam, which claimed to be the highest and purest revelation of God, and accused the Church of polytheism and idolatry in her veneration of images. The eighth century saw the rise of heated disputes. The opening act of the first stage of the iconoclast conflict was an order, issued in 726 by the Byzantine emperor Leo III ‘the Isaurian,’ to destroy the image of Christ over the bronze gates of the imperial palace in Constantinople; the image was replaced with a cross beneath which the emperor placed the following inscription: “Since God cannot bear for Christ to be portrayed in an image without word or life and made of corruptible matter despised by Scripture, Leo and his son the new Constantine, engraved the sign of the cross, the glory of believers, on the palace gates.” That act was followed by the official promulgation of measures against images and their veneration, as well as by acts of violence directed against icons and those who venerated them. It should be recalled that these iconoclastic measures begun by Leo III came only a few years after the edict of Caliph Yedzid II to destroy images in every Christian province he conquered and attacks on Christian worship by Jews. The emperor sought a cultural compromise aimed at enabling Arabs, Christians and Jews to live in harmony by eliminating elements of conflict. Reasons of state were more important than the rights of the faith. Pope Gregory III reacted in 731 by excommunicating those opposed to icons and their cult. In the East it was mainly Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, George of Cyprus and John Damascene who defended the veneration of icons. Germanus stated that to reject icons was to reject the Incarnation; for in the icon “we depict the image of [Christ’s] human aspect in the flesh, not that of his incomprehensible and invisible divinity, because we feel the need to represent that in which we believe, in order to demonstrate that God did not embrace our nature only in appearance, as a shadow, but that he became truly man” (Letter to John of Synnada). John Damascene fought the iconoclasts at various levels. He countered the accusation that in icons a piece of wood was adored, saying: “It is not matter which I venerate, but rather the Creator of matter who became matter for me” (Discourses, I, 16), and added that icons are “the books of the illiterate” (Discourses, II, 10). However the most important argument was theological; the dogmatic foundation for the cult of icons is the Incarnation. The Word became flesh: Jesus is the human face of God and therefore we may represent Him (Discourses, I, 22). The Old Testament forbade images; in the Old Covenant God had revealed himself only by word. In the New Testament, the Word becomes an image. Psalm 47:9 was often used to defend icons: “What we have heard, we have seen.” John Damascene makes a clear distinction between the icon and the prototype which it represents. The image is the object of veneration, not adoration; the latter is reserved for God alone.

In 754 a Synod convoked at Hieria on the Bosporus at the initiative of the emperor Constantine V gave normative status to the decisions of the iconoclasts. About 388 Bishops took part, but none from the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. The Synod declared the emperors equal to the Apostles, filled with wisdom through the working of the Holy Spirit, and charged them with leading the faithful back to the right path and instructing them; it also condemned the making and the cult of icons. It insisted on the distance between the icon, a material object, and that which it claimed to make visible. It considered the Eucharist the only true image. In this way, iconoclasm, hitherto supported by an imperial edict alone, became a dogma of the whole Church.

In the two decades that followed, the monks, the chief promoters of icons, were violently persecuted; numerous monasteries were confiscated, their monks were forced to join the imperial army, and some were tortured. In 769 Pope Stephen convoked a Synod at the Lateran which anathematised the Synod at Hieria; the Patriarchs of the East, Theodore of Jerusalem, Theodore of Antioch and Cosmas of Alexandria also rejected the decisions made at Hieria.

And now the matter is resolved.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And now the matter is resolved.

Ask a Baptist what the resolution is.

 

[HTacianas]

Ask a Baptist what the resolution is.

To me it really doesn't matter what a Baptist's opinion on the matter is. It was resolved long before there was any such thing as a Baptist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And now the matter is resolved.

For many, it is a bygone belief, yet some still cling to the old heresy.

 

[Grip Docility]

Iconography and Liturgy, Piero Marini, 20 January 2005

www.vatican.va

2. The iconoclast crisis

The Second Council of Nicaea marked the end of a long process of reflection on the meaning and place of images in the life of the Church.

Before the beginning of the third century, there were few images in the Church. This was due to the danger of idolatrous practices widespread in the pagan world, which had already been at the basis of the Old Testament legislation forbidding the fashioning of images.

The peace of the Church at the time of Constantine had decisive consequences. As the number of baptised Christians increased, exterior signs of Christian devotion multiplied, the cult of the martyrs grew, people began to make pilgrimages, and everywhere new churches and basilicas were built. Christian art ceased to be mainly funeral iconography, unintelligible to the uninitiated, and was used to further the evangelisation of the growing numbers of Christians.

In the fourth century, for the first time in the history of the Church, voices were raised in opposition to religious images on the basis of the prohibitions contained in the Old Testament (cfr Ex 20:4; Dt 4:15-18). Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, (ca. 300 AD.), a Council of which we know relatively little, decreed that “images may not be exposed in Church;” while iconoclast statements are found in the letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to the Empress Constantia and the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. According to scholars, this first form of aversion to icons was a limited and restricted phenomenon, perhaps somewhat coloured by Arianism; there would seem to be a connection between the Arian insistence on God’s transcendence and the banning of images. However iconoclast views persisted as the centuries passed, and so other voices were raised in defence of icons. Gregory the Great (540-604) wrote that “it is not without reason that in the older Churches the lives of the saints were depicted in paintings... what Scripture is for the literate, so the image is for the illiterate... images are the books of those who do not know the Scriptures” (Letters, IX, 209).

The use of icons became more widespread in the sixth and seventh centuries, encouraged by popular faith, legends and miracles. Yet it did not spread evenly throughout Christendom; because of their cultural background, the Syrians and Armenians, for example, were much less inclined to use images. Significant, the emperors who encouraged iconoclasm were of Isaurian or Armenian origin. In 692 the Council in Trullo stated that: “in certain sacred images the Precursor is portrayed pointing to the lamb. This portrayal was used as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of the true lamb, that is Christ our God, revealed to us according to the law. Having therefore accepted these figures and shadows as symbols of the truth handed down by the Church, today we prefer grace and truth themselves as the fullness of this law. Therefore to expose by means of painting that which is perfect we decree that henceforth Christ, our God, shall be represented in his human form and not in the old form of the lamb” (Can 82). Already for the Fathers of the Council in Trullo, the image of Christ implied a confession of profound faith in the incarnation.

One factor which contributed to a hardening of positions for or against the use of icons was the advance of Islam, which claimed to be the highest and purest revelation of God, and accused the Church of polytheism and idolatry in her veneration of images. The eighth century saw the rise of heated disputes. The opening act of the first stage of the iconoclast conflict was an order, issued in 726 by the Byzantine emperor Leo III ‘the Isaurian,’ to destroy the image of Christ over the bronze gates of the imperial palace in Constantinople; the image was replaced with a cross beneath which the emperor placed the following inscription: “Since God cannot bear for Christ to be portrayed in an image without word or life and made of corruptible matter despised by Scripture, Leo and his son the new Constantine, engraved the sign of the cross, the glory of believers, on the palace gates.” That act was followed by the official promulgation of measures against images and their veneration, as well as by acts of violence directed against icons and those who venerated them. It should be recalled that these iconoclastic measures begun by Leo III came only a few years after the edict of Caliph Yedzid II to destroy images in every Christian province he conquered and attacks on Christian worship by Jews. The emperor sought a cultural compromise aimed at enabling Arabs, Christians and Jews to live in harmony by eliminating elements of conflict. Reasons of state were more important than the rights of the faith. Pope Gregory III reacted in 731 by excommunicating those opposed to icons and their cult. In the East it was mainly Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, George of Cyprus and John Damascene who defended the veneration of icons. Germanus stated that to reject icons was to reject the Incarnation; for in the icon “we depict the image of [Christ’s] human aspect in the flesh, not that of his incomprehensible and invisible divinity, because we feel the need to represent that in which we believe, in order to demonstrate that God did not embrace our nature only in appearance, as a shadow, but that he became truly man” (Letter to John of Synnada). John Damascene fought the iconoclasts at various levels. He countered the accusation that in icons a piece of wood was adored, saying: “It is not matter which I venerate, but rather the Creator of matter who became matter for me” (Discourses, I, 16), and added that icons are “the books of the illiterate” (Discourses, II, 10). However the most important argument was theological; the dogmatic foundation for the cult of icons is the Incarnation. The Word became flesh: Jesus is the human face of God and therefore we may represent Him (Discourses, I, 22). The Old Testament forbade images; in the Old Covenant God had revealed himself only by word. In the New Testament, the Word becomes an image. Psalm 47:9 was often used to defend icons: “What we have heard, we have seen.” John Damascene makes a clear distinction between the icon and the prototype which it represents. The image is the object of veneration, not adoration; the latter is reserved for God alone.

In 754 a Synod convoked at Hieria on the Bosporus at the initiative of the emperor Constantine V gave normative status to the decisions of the iconoclasts. About 388 Bishops took part, but none from the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. The Synod declared the emperors equal to the Apostles, filled with wisdom through the working of the Holy Spirit, and charged them with leading the faithful back to the right path and instructing them; it also condemned the making and the cult of icons. It insisted on the distance between the icon, a material object, and that which it claimed to make visible. It considered the Eucharist the only true image. In this way, iconoclasm, hitherto supported by an imperial edict alone, became a dogma of the whole Church.

In the two decades that followed, the monks, the chief promoters of icons, were violently persecuted; numerous monasteries were confiscated, their monks were forced to join the imperial army, and some were tortured. In 769 Pope Stephen convoked a Synod at the Lateran which anathematised the Synod at Hieria; the Patriarchs of the East, Theodore of Jerusalem, Theodore of Antioch and Cosmas of Alexandria also rejected the decisions made at Hieria.

This was rich in historical information! Much Gratitude. I'm Going to copy your wonderful OP and place the quote in my history of Abrahamic Faith Collection!

It is always sad to read when blood is spilled between brethren over historical matters such as this.

 

[Grip Docility]

Iconography and Liturgy, Piero Marini, 20 January 2005

www.vatican.va

2. The iconoclast crisis

The Second Council of Nicaea marked the end of a long process of reflection on the meaning and place of images in the life of the Church.

Before the beginning of the third century, there were few images in the Church. This was due to the danger of idolatrous practices widespread in the pagan world, which had already been at the basis of the Old Testament legislation forbidding the fashioning of images.

The peace of the Church at the time of Constantine had decisive consequences. As the number of baptised Christians increased, exterior signs of Christian devotion multiplied, the cult of the martyrs grew, people began to make pilgrimages, and everywhere new churches and basilicas were built. Christian art ceased to be mainly funeral iconography, unintelligible to the uninitiated, and was used to further the evangelisation of the growing numbers of Christians.

In the fourth century, for the first time in the history of the Church, voices were raised in opposition to religious images on the basis of the prohibitions contained in the Old Testament (cfr Ex 20:4; Dt 4:15-18). Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, (ca. 300 AD.), a Council of which we know relatively little, decreed that “images may not be exposed in Church;” while iconoclast statements are found in the letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to the Empress Constantia and the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. According to scholars, this first form of aversion to icons was a limited and restricted phenomenon, perhaps somewhat coloured by Arianism; there would seem to be a connection between the Arian insistence on God’s transcendence and the banning of images. However iconoclast views persisted as the centuries passed, and so other voices were raised in defence of icons. Gregory the Great (540-604) wrote that “it is not without reason that in the older Churches the lives of the saints were depicted in paintings... what Scripture is for the literate, so the image is for the illiterate... images are the books of those who do not know the Scriptures” (Letters, IX, 209).

The use of icons became more widespread in the sixth and seventh centuries, encouraged by popular faith, legends and miracles. Yet it did not spread evenly throughout Christendom; because of their cultural background, the Syrians and Armenians, for example, were much less inclined to use images. Significant, the emperors who encouraged iconoclasm were of Isaurian or Armenian origin. In 692 the Council in Trullo stated that: “in certain sacred images the Precursor is portrayed pointing to the lamb. This portrayal was used as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of the true lamb, that is Christ our God, revealed to us according to the law. Having therefore accepted these figures and shadows as symbols of the truth handed down by the Church, today we prefer grace and truth themselves as the fullness of this law. Therefore to expose by means of painting that which is perfect we decree that henceforth Christ, our God, shall be represented in his human form and not in the old form of the lamb” (Can 82). Already for the Fathers of the Council in Trullo, the image of Christ implied a confession of profound faith in the incarnation.

One factor which contributed to a hardening of positions for or against the use of icons was the advance of Islam, which claimed to be the highest and purest revelation of God, and accused the Church of polytheism and idolatry in her veneration of images. The eighth century saw the rise of heated disputes. The opening act of the first stage of the iconoclast conflict was an order, issued in 726 by the Byzantine emperor Leo III ‘the Isaurian,’ to destroy the image of Christ over the bronze gates of the imperial palace in Constantinople; the image was replaced with a cross beneath which the emperor placed the following inscription: “Since God cannot bear for Christ to be portrayed in an image without word or life and made of corruptible matter despised by Scripture, Leo and his son the new Constantine, engraved the sign of the cross, the glory of believers, on the palace gates.” That act was followed by the official promulgation of measures against images and their veneration, as well as by acts of violence directed against icons and those who venerated them. It should be recalled that these iconoclastic measures begun by Leo III came only a few years after the edict of Caliph Yedzid II to destroy images in every Christian province he conquered and attacks on Christian worship by Jews. The emperor sought a cultural compromise aimed at enabling Arabs, Christians and Jews to live in harmony by eliminating elements of conflict. Reasons of state were more important than the rights of the faith. Pope Gregory III reacted in 731 by excommunicating those opposed to icons and their cult. In the East it was mainly Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, George of Cyprus and John Damascene who defended the veneration of icons. Germanus stated that to reject icons was to reject the Incarnation; for in the icon “we depict the image of [Christ’s] human aspect in the flesh, not that of his incomprehensible and invisible divinity, because we feel the need to represent that in which we believe, in order to demonstrate that God did not embrace our nature only in appearance, as a shadow, but that he became truly man” (Letter to John of Synnada). John Damascene fought the iconoclasts at various levels. He countered the accusation that in icons a piece of wood was adored, saying: “It is not matter which I venerate, but rather the Creator of matter who became matter for me” (Discourses, I, 16), and added that icons are “the books of the illiterate” (Discourses, II, 10). However the most important argument was theological; the dogmatic foundation for the cult of icons is the Incarnation. The Word became flesh: Jesus is the human face of God and therefore we may represent Him (Discourses, I, 22). The Old Testament forbade images; in the Old Covenant God had revealed himself only by word. In the New Testament, the Word becomes an image. Psalm 47:9 was often used to defend icons: “What we have heard, we have seen.” John Damascene makes a clear distinction between the icon and the prototype which it represents. The image is the object of veneration, not adoration; the latter is reserved for God alone.

In 754 a Synod convoked at Hieria on the Bosporus at the initiative of the emperor Constantine V gave normative status to the decisions of the iconoclasts. About 388 Bishops took part, but none from the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. The Synod declared the emperors equal to the Apostles, filled with wisdom through the working of the Holy Spirit, and charged them with leading the faithful back to the right path and instructing them; it also condemned the making and the cult of icons. It insisted on the distance between the icon, a material object, and that which it claimed to make visible. It considered the Eucharist the only true image. In this way, iconoclasm, hitherto supported by an imperial edict alone, became a dogma of the whole Church.

In the two decades that followed, the monks, the chief promoters of icons, were violently persecuted; numerous monasteries were confiscated, their monks were forced to join the imperial army, and some were tortured. In 769 Pope Stephen convoked a Synod at the Lateran which anathematised the Synod at Hieria; the Patriarchs of the East, Theodore of Jerusalem, Theodore of Antioch and Cosmas of Alexandria also rejected the decisions made at Hieria.

From what I gathered, forms of Arianism brought people back to old covenant type thinking, which began the persecution of people that desired to have Christian Art within the Parish's for the sake of teaching and visualization. Because Islam is a form of Arianism, it continues to hold to that concept of the Arian Heresies pulling people back into old covenant thinking.

Is this a fair summary, or is there more to it? Also, what is the final stance of the Mother Church on all of this, when considered today?

 

[RandyPNW]

I've always enjoyed history. The iconoclast controversy is a history of confusion, but is explainable in the light of changing circumstances. A number of issues were referenced, such as placating Muslims, those who considered the Law of Moses applicable, and pagans who practiced idolatry. But as we discussed previously, I said that God used symbolism and art, and there is nothing to prohibit us from using memory devices to enhance our Christian living.

Of course, there will always be those who use icons in an idolatrous way, venerating images in place of living responsible spiritual lives. There is little that can be done with that--God judges the heart. When an entire church is corrupted with idolatrous veneration of images, then it is time to leave the church--not condemn symbols and art.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

From what I gathered, forms of Arianism brought people back to old covenant type thinking, which began the persecution of people that desired to have Christian Art within the Parish's for the sake of teaching and visualization. Because Islam is a form of Arianism, it continues to hold to that concept of the Arian Heresies pulling people back into old covenant thinking.

Is this a fair summary, or is there more to it? Also, what is the final stance of the Mother Church on all of this, when considered today?

The OP is from a Vatican document, the document is called "Iconography and Liturgy, Piero Marini, 20 January 2005"

 

[chevyontheriver]

To me it really doesn't matter what a Baptist's opinion on the matter is. It was resolved long before there was any such thing as a Baptist.

And yet if the history of these things is of any value today it is to keep us from falling for the same old things. Lots of people, not just Baptists, as I’m not even pretending to be picking on them, fall into the same error today. So yes, it is resolved but no, it is not a solved problem in that many people didn’t get the resolution.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've always enjoyed history. The iconoclast controversy is a history of confusion, but is explainable in the light of changing circumstances. A number of issues were referenced, such as placating Muslims, those who considered the Law of Moses applicable, and pagans who practiced idolatry. But as we discussed previously, I said that God used symbolism and art, and there is nothing to prohibit us from using memory devices to enhance our Christian living.

Of course, there will always be those who use icons in an idolatrous way, venerating images in place of living responsible spiritual lives. There is little that can be done with that--God judges the heart. When an entire church is corrupted with idolatrous veneration of images, then it is time to leave the church--not condemn symbols and art.

An entire church cannot be corrupted with “idolatrous veneration of images”, since if icons are merely venerated, they are not being worshipped, and idolatry literally means idol-worship. Indeed the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, the Second Council of Constantinople, requires the veneration of icons, while prohibiting their worship. It also anathematizes anyone who falsely claims that the Church has ever had idols (which it hasn’t - any idols have been held by schismatic sects which cut themselves off by virtue of their actual idolatry, and this is also extremely rare, so rare I can’t think of any of these sects by name, which usually I am able to, although if I recall the Manichaeans engaged in some idolatrous practices, and they are regarded as a heretical sect, although idolatry is just a small part of their divergence from orthodoxy).

Now there were some priests who in response to the Iconoclasm actually did engage in inappropriate use of icons, which was also prohibited under penalty of anathema by the Second Council of Nicaea. For example, they would cut a chip of paint off an icon and put it in the Chalice, thus contaminating the Eucharist. But these practices, which are idolatrous, represent a misuse of an icon - an icon does not cease to be legitimate simply because someone worships it in violation of the clearly defined rules of the traditional churches which adhere to the Second Council of Nicaea or its equivalents.

*Specifically the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the Seventh Ecumenical Synod due to the unfortunate schism, however, they have always rejected Iconoclasm and have the distinction of never having had any of their autocephalous churches taken over by an Iconoclast patriarchate, whereas unfortunately that did happen in Constantinople, the result being a massive and tragic destruction of icons, so that the oldest icons we have are mainly from outlying parts of the church, like St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai.

 

[dzheremi]

because of their cultural background, the Syrians and Armenians, for example, were much less inclined to use images. Significant, the emperors who encouraged iconoclasm were of Isaurian or Armenian origin.

"Much less inclined" in what way? Less inclined to make their interiors look like Byzantine churches, maybe, but even then, there are notable exceptions, such as Vank Cathedral in Isfahan, Iran (groundbreaking in 1606):

Read what Armenian Apostolic theologians have written about icons since c. 600 AD at Vemkar (a ministry of the Armenian Church in the Eastern US). Note that this is ~ 2 centuries before the Chalcedonians had their Second Council of Nicaea in 787.

The same could be said of Syriac Orthodox churches, in that they generally do not have the floor to ceiling murals many Byzantine churches do, but they do still have icons, and they still actively produce icons for their churches and worshippers, as you can see here in this story about the consecration of icons of the twelve apostles as part of liturgy presided over by HH Mor Ignatius Aphrem II in Lebanon a few years ago:

If anyone is actually interested to learn about the Syriac Orthodox Church from people within it, instead of yet more lame and off-base Chalcedonian boilerplate that blames Orthodox Christians for all the stupid heresies that the Chalcedonians themselves once embraced (apparently based on nothing more consequential than the ethnic composition of some emperors, this time around...), then I would welcome you all to listen to this discussion with the very learned metropolitan HE Mor Severios Roger Akhrass (the Patriarchal Vicar for Syriac Studies mentioned in the earlier link about the consecration of icons in Lebanon) on Syriac icons of the liturgical year:

As you will hear in the video, most of the Syriac icons used during the liturgical year are found in gospels. This is something that it seems they probably have in common with the Armenians, as the Armenians also have a very long tradition of illuminated gospel manuscripts from which some of their most famous iconographic depictions of the faith come, but as already demonstrated, this in no way means that they do not also produce and venerate icons outside of the gospels in which many are found. Looking at this issue through a wider, pan-OO lens, it only becomes more and more absurd to treat this as some kind division whereby outsiders can say that "such-and-such people are much less likely to use icons for cultural reasons", presumably because their iconography is found in gospels (again, rather than covering floor to ceiling of their churches), when the people who have the very oldest illuminated gospel in the entire world, the Ethiopians/Axumites to whom the Garima Gospels (c. 500 AD) belong, also have churches whose interiors look like this as a part of their normative practice:

Debre Birhan Selassie church, Gondar (17th century)

As our friend The Liturgist points out above, the Oriental Orthodox communion was never taken in by iconoclasm. Not the Armenians, not the Syrians, not the Copts, and not the Ethiopians or Eritreans. Iconoclasm was a very sad problem for the Chalcedonian churches, making the insinuation in the article shared in the OP that this is somehow a heresy especially supported by Armenians frankly incredibly ridiculous and insulting.

 

[The Liturgist]

"Much less inclined" in what way? Less inclined to make their interiors look like Byzantine churches, maybe, but even then, there are notable exceptions, such as Vank Cathedral in Isfahan, Iran (groundbreaking in 1606):

Read what Armenian Apostolic theologians have written about icons since c. 600 AD at Vemkar (a ministry of the Armenian Church in the Eastern US). Note that this is ~ 2 centuries before the Chalcedonians had their Second Council of Nicaea in 787.

The same could be said of Syriac Orthodox churches, in that they generally do not have the floor to ceiling murals many Byzantine churches do, but they do still have icons, and they still actively produce icons for their churches and worshippers, as you can see here in this story about the consecration of icons of the twelve apostles as part of liturgy presided over by HH Mor Ignatius Aphrem II in Lebanon a few years ago:

If anyone is actually interested to learn about the Syriac Orthodox Church from people within it, instead of yet more lame and off-base Chalcedonian boilerplate that blames Orthodox Christians for all the stupid heresies that the Chalcedonians themselves once embraced (apparently based on nothing more consequential than the ethnic composition of some emperors, this time around...), then I would welcome you all to listen to this discussion with the very learned metropolitan HE Mor Severios Roger Akhrass (the Patriarchal Vicar for Syriac Studies mentioned in the earlier link about the consecration of icons in Lebanon) on Syriac icons of the liturgical year:

As you will hear in the video, most of the Syriac icons used during the liturgical year are found in gospels. This is something that it seems they probably have in common with the Armenians, as the Armenians also have a very long tradition of illuminated gospel manuscripts from which some of their most famous iconographic depictions of the faith come, but as already demonstrated, this in no way means that they do not also produce and venerate icons outside of the gospels in which many are found. Looking at this issue through a wider, pan-OO lens, it only becomes more and more absurd to treat this as some kind division whereby outsiders can say that "such-and-such people are much less likely to use icons for cultural reasons", presumably because their iconography is found in gospels (again, rather than covering floor to ceiling of their churches), when the people who have the very oldest illuminated gospel in the entire world, the Ethiopians/Axumites to whom the Garima Gospels (c. 500 AD) belong, also have churches whose interiors look like this as a part of their normative practice:

Debre Birhan Selassie church, Gondar (17th century)

As our friend The Liturgist points out above, the Oriental Orthodox communion was never taken in by iconoclasm. Not the Armenians, not the Syrians, not the Copts, and not the Ethiopians or Eritreans. Iconoclasm was a very sad problem for the Chalcedonian churches, making the insinuation in the article shared in the OP that this is somehow a heresy especially supported by Armenians frankly incredibly ridiculous and insulting.

Indeed, throughout their history the Oriental Orthodox have proven themselves to be immune to the temptations of Iconoclasm, and this includes the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Syriac Orthodox.

Now, obviously the Byzantine emperors may have been ethnically Syrian or Armenian, but they were not Oriental Orthodox since the state religion of the Byzantine Empire was the Chalcedonian church.

 

[RandyPNW]

An entire church cannot be corrupted with “idolatrous veneration of images”, since if icons are merely venerated, they are not being worshipped, and idolatry literally means idol-worship. Indeed the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, the Second Council of Constantinople, requires the veneration of icons, while prohibiting their worship. It also anathematizes anyone who falsely claims that the Church has ever had idols (which it hasn’t - any idols have been held by schismatic sects which cut themselves off by virtue of their actual idolatry, and this is also extremely rare, so rare I can’t think of any of these sects by name, which usually I am able to, although if I recall the Manichaeans engaged in some idolatrous practices, and they are regarded as a heretical sect, although idolatry is just a small part of their divergence from orthodoxy).

Now there were some priests who in response to the Iconoclasm actually did engage in inappropriate use of icons, which was also prohibited under penalty of anathema by the Second Council of Nicaea. For example, they would cut a chip of paint off an icon and put it in the Chalice, thus contaminating the Eucharist. But these practices, which are idolatrous, represent a misuse of an icon - an icon does not cease to be legitimate simply because someone worships it in violation of the clearly defined rules of the traditional churches which adhere to the Second Council of Nicaea or its equivalents.

*Specifically the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the Seventh Ecumenical Synod due to the unfortunate schism, however, they have always rejected Iconoclasm and have the distinction of never having had any of their autocephalous churches taken over by an Iconoclast patriarchate, whereas unfortunately that did happen in Constantinople, the result being a massive and tragic destruction of icons, so that the oldest icons we have are mainly from outlying parts of the church, like St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai.

Technically yes. However, Protestants have viewed the excessive insistence on conformity to Roman Catholic authority as a form of "idolatry" in itself. That's when I would be tempted to depart from that organized communion. In this case, The RCC would not be insisting on a literal worship of itself. But it would be, in the eyes of Protestants, assuming the place of God in determining their sect as being the one necessary for Salvation. I don't believe this is true of the RCC today.

We were, however, speaking of iconoclasm. The same thing could be true in a time when the RCC insisted on the veneration of images to the point where some felt that it veered too near to using the images to actually worship God. It became, for some, a form of religious ritual to obtain favor with God, similar to pleasing God by works without true faith.

We may disagree with anybody ever doing this. But I would argue that it is done all of the time outside of this particular controversy, with people attempting to please God through various religious rituals without really having the kind of faith that produces obedience. Nominal Christians, lacking faith that produces works of righteousness, may substitute the Eucharist or Baptism for works of righteousness that result in compassion and justice. It would be like criminal bikers sending a care package to needy children.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, Protestants have viewed the excessive insistence on conformity to Roman Catholic authority as a form of "idolatry" in itself.

Which Protestants? You’re the first one I’ve met who has said anything like that.

 

[The Liturgist]

eneration of images to the point where some felt that it veered too near to using the images to actually worship God

We do venerate Icons as a means to worship Christ our True God by commemorating His incarnation. That’s the point. We do not worship the images, we worship God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but venerating the icons is a form of worshipping God because it acknowledges His incarnation and also His salvation of the Theotokos, the Holy Apostles, the Holy Martyrs, and the Holy Prophets and Patriarchs and Angels and all the saints, which we hope to be numbered among. Not because we want to be worshipped - we do not. Worshipping anyone, or anything, other than God, is idolatry.*

Thus it is entirely acceptable to venerate an image of Christ since He is God incarnate, and in Him the glory of God was made manifest, according to chapter 1 of the Gospel according to John, so that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. Therefore, whereas it would previously have been impossible to have an icon depicting God, it is now possible, since God put on our humanity.

But in all cases, we must worship God and not the icon. The icon is merely venerated as part of our worship. It has no holiness apart from that which it depicts - icons are windows through which we can see our incarnate Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and those He has saved.

In order to commit idolatry, we would have to worship an icon, for example, some people overeacted to Iconoclasm and engaged in idolatry by chipping paint off the holy icons and putting the paint in the Chalice and serving it with the Eucharist, but this did not turn the icon into an idol but rather merely desecrated it (by intentionally damaging it for purposes of a forbiddenreligious practice incompatible with Orthodox Christianity).

* Indeed it is widely believed that the devil envied the worship received by God, and this would explain why the demons encouraged people in antiquity to worship them as gods and make idols of them (Psalms 95:5 LXX “The gods of the gentiles are demons”, or in the MT, Psalms 96:5 “The gods of the gentiles are idols.” Obviously both translations are correct, but I think the LXX translation is more useful, since we already know the gentiles were idolaters, but this confirms what they were worshipping was diabolical).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which Protestants? You’re the first one I’ve met who has said anything like that.

I tend to view the personality cult surrounding some Televangelists as a form of idolatry, and the absolute devotion to the KJV by KJV-only adherents as a similar idolatry. In a discussion I initiated here on CF, I observed that at least one or two members have explicitly referred to their Bible as God. However, I do not regard the Catholic Church as God, nor do I consider any Catholic doctrine or dogma to be an object of adoration and worship. While Popes are held in high esteem, they remain human, prone to sin and error. Although their Ex-cathedra declarations are deemed infallible, their other statements (which make up the vast majority of what a pope says and writes) are fallible, just like the writings of any other author.

 

[The Liturgist]

I tend to view the personality cult surrounding some Televangelists as a form of idolatry, and the absolute devotion to the KJV by KJV-only adherents as a similar idolatry. In a discussion I initiated here on CF, I observed that at least one or two members have explicitly referred to their Bible as God. However, I do not regard the Catholic Church as God, nor do I consider any Catholic doctrine or dogma to be an object of adoration and worship.

Indeed, we are in agreement on all of these points. God bless you my friend!

 

[RandyPNW]

We do venerate Icons as a means to worship Christ our True God by commemorating His incarnation. That’s the point.

But that isn't what I said. I said that some can venerate images thinking that the veneration of the images itself is the worship of God. That is just another form of idolatry. After all, people knew idols were purely stone, as well--they just represented the gods they were worshiping.

But icons do not represent God at all. So it is not worshipping the icons, but rather, using them as a reminder of who God is. That may be legitimate if the heart is right.

We do not worship the images, we worship God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but venerating the icons is a form of worshipping God because it acknowledges His incarnation and also His salvation of the Theotokos, the Holy Apostles, the Holy Martyrs, and the Holy Prophets and Patriarchs and Angels and all the saints, which we hope to be numbered among. Not because we want to be worshipped - we do not. Worshipping anyone, or anything, other than God, is idolatry.*

Agreed.

Thus it is entirely acceptable to venerate an image of Christ since He is God incarnate, and in Him the glory of God was made manifest, according to chapter 1 of the Gospel according to John, so that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. Therefore, whereas it would previously have been impossible to have an icon depicting God, it is now possible, since God put on our humanity.

Yes, but you are not worshipping Christ as if he is in the image. I think some people use icons that way illegitimately, by treating the image as if it is Christ himself, treating it as a holy object when the object itself is just wood or stone, or something else.

But in all cases, we must worship God and not the icon. The icon is merely venerated as part of our worship. It has no holiness apart from that which it depicts - icons are windows through which we can see our incarnate Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and those He has saved.

Agreed.

In order to commit idolatry, we would have to worship an icon, for example, some people overeacted to Iconoclasm and engaged in idolatry by chipping paint off the holy icons and putting the paint in the Chalice and serving it with the Eucharist, but this did not turn the icon into an idol but rather merely desecrated it (by intentionally damaging it for purposes of a forbiddenreligious practice incompatible with Orthodox Christianity).

Some have treated icons as if they have god-like powers, ie treat them as if they are some representation of God Himself.

* Indeed it is widely believed that the devil envied the worship received by God, and this would explain why the demons encouraged people in antiquity to worship them as gods and make idols of them (Psalms 95:5 LXX “The gods of the gentiles are demons”, or in the MT, Psalms 96:5 “The gods of the gentiles are idols.” Obviously both translations are correct, but I think the LXX translation is more useful, since we already know the gentiles were idolaters, but this confirms what they were worshipping was diabolical).

Thank you. Good word and solid defense. I find it difficult to distinguish between proper veneration and idol-worship. I suppose I look at it from my own perspective--I like art but I don't need images to worship God. Nevertheless, I'm over-awed by beautiful Christian art in the great cathedrals. i envy those times when the State was fully Christian.

 

[RandyPNW]

Which Protestants? You’re the first one I’ve met who has said anything like that.

All Protestants. All Protestants reject the claim of the Catholic Church to be the supreme and only legitimate organization representing Christianity on earth, and the Pope's claim to represent Jesus himself. Need I say more?