The second Council of Nicea

[HTacianas]

This is an excerpt from the decrees of the second Council of Nicea, 787 AD, concerning the veneration of icons:

"We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holychurches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that trueworship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient piouscustom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holyFathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all your heart. The Lord has taken away from you the oppression of your adversaries; you are redeemed from the hand of your enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of you; you shall not see evil any more, and peace be unto you forever."

The entirety of the Council's findings can be read here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Nicaea

 

[Chris V++]

Which specific icons are believed to facilitate miracles? Are there any early writings or decrees about the miracle -facilitating aspect of icons? This decree mentions offering incense to the icons but doesn't elaborate on how the icons might be expected to respond.

 

[HTacianas]

Which specific icons are believed to facilitate miracles? Are there any early writings or decrees about the miracle -facilitating aspect of icons? This decree mentions offering incense to the icons but doesn't elaborate on how the icons might be expected to respond.

We offer incense and prayers to God but nothing elaborates how God might respond.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is there a point you're hoping to make?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Which specific icons are believed to facilitate miracles? Are there any early writings or decrees about the miracle -facilitating aspect of icons? This decree mentions offering incense to the icons but doesn't elaborate on how the icons might be expected to respond.

Icons themselves are wood and paint. They do not respond. They are not idols and we do not expect them to respond.

God Himself can act in whatever way(s) He chooses, and sometimes grace comes by way of a physical thing, such as cloths that had touched St. Paul healing people.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question?

 

[Chris V++]

sometimes grace comes by way of a physical thing, such as cloths that had touched St. Paul healing people.

So its safe to say that there might be an expectation to experience grace thru the use of icons? Icons are more than just paint and wood after they are blessed and prayed over left for a prescribed amount of time at the altar, no? You wouldn't just discard an icon like you would a Paint by Numbers Sacred Heart you found at a yard sale. If an Icon of St Paul for example is intended to connect one mystically to Paul, by the Grace of God Paul might be permitted to work miracles though a St. Paul icon, like in your example about the cloth. If an icon is an extension of a prototype as they say then it must have intrinsic power. Was Paul's real essence present in the cloth that he had touched, or was the cloth itself imbued with Paul's power given to him by the indwelling Holy Spirit? Aren't there specific icons in various churches known as fact or believed in faith to facilitate miracles?

 

[~Anastasia~]

So its safe to say that there might be an expectation to experience grace thru the use of icons? Icons are more than just paint and wood after they are blessed and prayed over left for a prescribed amount of time at the altar, no? You wouldn't just discard an icon like you would a Paint by Numbers Sacred Heart you found at a yard sale. If an Icon of St Paul for example is intended to connect one mystically to Paul, by the Grace of God Paul might be permitted to work miracles though a St. Paul icon, like in your example about the cloth. If an icon is an extension of a prototype as they say then it must have intrinsic power. Was Paul's real essence present in the cloth that he had touched, or was the cloth itself imbued with Paul's power given to him by the indwelling Holy Spirit? Aren't there specific icons in various churches known as fact or believed in faith to facilitate miracles?

I was answering from the context of ...

"People offer incense to icons and how do they expect the icons to respond"

Strictly speaking, we don't offer incense to icons, and we shouldn't expect the icon itself to do any particular action.

The incense is offered to God, veneration is for the one depicted in the icon, and God may choose to respond in any number of ways - but it is the grace of God, not the icon itself as a thing of wood and paint.

But yes, icons are more than wood and paint. Bibles are also more than paper and ink. Flags are more than fabric and thread, for that matter.

Icons in addition have been blessed, as you say. And prayer can in a way imbue objects and places with ... something I can't immediately offer a word for. Prayer often seems to affect God's grace through an icon. Some icons do work miracles (not the icon itself but God's grace), weep myrrh, and can be involved in all kinds of normally impossible things happening.

I'm not the person to explain such things. But my point was very much to say that icons are NOT idols. They are aids to prayer, teaching tools, and if God so desires they can be vehicles of grace. But saying we EXPECT an icon to "respond" sounds extremely suspect to me ... I don't see how that can be not idolatry. We can of course hope for the grace of God, and we may hope especially that He may choose to do so through an icon He has already used many times.

But the Source we look to is VERY important, IMO, to prevent icons becoming idols to us. It is a potential error if we don't regard things properly.

But as I said, I'm not the one to explain all this. I'm just doing the best I can.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

So its safe to say that there might be an expectation to experience grace thru the use of icons? .... If an icon is an extension of a prototype as they say then it must have intrinsic power. Was Paul's real essence present in the cloth that he had touched, or was the cloth itself imbued with Paul's power given to him by the indwelling Holy Spirit? Aren't there specific icons in various churches known as fact or believed in faith to facilitate miracles?

This is a website of an Hawaiian Orthodox church where two icons began to stream myrrh.
Hawaii's Myrrh-Streaming Icon

 

[FenderTL5]

Yes icons are more than wood and paint.
OTOH (from: Three Treatises on the Divine Images
By Saint John of Damascus)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes icons are more than wood and paint.
OTOH (from: Three Treatises on the Divine Images
By Saint John of Damascus)
View attachment 254558

That's one of my favorite quotes. Thanks for sharing.


I wonder if I've made an error by posting and calling icons "wood and paint" ... which elementally they are. I don't mean any disrespect because just as truly, they are more than just wood and paint. I was trying to make a point, and I'm not sure if I did it without bringing up other potential errors.

Always the words of the Fathers are safer. Thank you. I actually put off replying to the thread because I'd hoped someone would do it and do better than I ... but in the end I didn't see that happen and I was afraid if I left it I would forget.

I'm very conscious of what we leave in the archives. Maybe because I did a bit of searching as an inquirer and a catechumen, and I would hope people not be confused or misled, if I can do any small thing to prevent that.

 

[FenderTL5]

That's one of my favorite quotes. Thanks for sharing.


I wonder if I've made an error by posting and calling icons "wood and paint" ...

I don't think so. St John of Damascus calls them merely "wood". I think your usage was similar.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think so. St John of Damascus calls them merely "wood". I think your usage was similar.

Thanks. It was my intent anyway. Though of course he did a much better job.

 

[Chris V++]

So is there a consequence for not venerating or refusing to venerate icons? I've heard in a lecture that that this Council declared it heresy or anathema to refuse to venerate icons but I can't yet find support for that statement. Was it declared that Icon veneration is a necessary aspect of worship?




I found this from the 7th Council (which was obviously overturned) that seems to say the opposite. from Internet History Sourcebooks Project

EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIABULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.(1)

(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image ( karakthr ) of the Word after

the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!

(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!

(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and fires falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!

(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!

(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative ( sketikh ) union of the natures, etc.

(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.

(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form

546

of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc.

(15) 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, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So is there a consequence for not venerating or refusing to venerate icons? I've heard in a lecture that that this Council declared it heresy or anathema to refuse to venerate icons but I can't yet find support for that statement.

I would think of it like this ...

One doesn't HAVE to venerate icons. There can be a blessing involved and we are giving up that blessing if we refuse. But that part is our choice.

On the other hand, if we think we know better than the Church, that the Church is wrong about the whole thing and we are right --- then we are not truly Orthodox in our thinking and need to search out the matter more and/or search in our hearts and work on them.

We don't have to be fully understanding of everything. But we have to at least understand that the Church has her reasons and wisdom within Holy Tradition. In places where we might disagree (not yet fully understand), we are free to abstain from some things (ask your priest!!!) but we cannot put ourselves over the Church. This was told to me repeatedly by different priests, especially in the context of prayers to the Saints.

 

[Chris V++]

I found the following from an Orthodox source Anathema - Iconoclasm - The Worst of Heresies | St Nino Equal-to-the-Apostles Orthodox Church indicating a view that refusing to venerate is anathema. Am I misreading or is isn't this the equivalent of cursing those who aren't willing to venerate icons?

Here's an excerpt:

'The bishop Basil of Ancyra read as follows from a book; Inasmuch as ecclesiastical legislation has canonically been handed down from past time, even from the beginning from the holy Apostles, and from their successors, who were our holy fathers and teachers,....
These things thus I confess and to these I assent, and therefore in simplicity of heart and in uprightness of mind, in the presence of God, I have made the subjoined anathematisms.

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 hath 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 hath 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.

This is my confession [of faith] and to these propositions I give my assent. And I pronounce this with my whole heart, and soul, and mind.

And if at any time by the fraud of the devil (which may God forbid!) I voluntarily or involuntarily shall be opposed to what I have now professed, may I be anathema from the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the Catholic Church and every hierarchical order a stranger.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Since Protestants generally reject Second Nicaea, would this not imply the Church has been in error since that council? Was this a minor error or a large error?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I found the following from an Orthodox source Anathema - Iconoclasm - The Worst of Heresies | St Nino Equal-to-the-Apostles Orthodox Church indicating a view that refusing to venerate is anathema. Am I misreading or is isn't this the equivalent of cursing those who aren't willing to venerate icons?

Here's an excerpt:

'The bishop Basil of Ancyra read as follows from a book; Inasmuch as ecclesiastical legislation has canonically been handed down from past time, even from the beginning from the holy Apostles, and from their successors, who were our holy fathers and teachers,....
These things thus I confess and to these I assent, and therefore in simplicity of heart and in uprightness of mind, in the presence of God, I have made the subjoined anathematisms.

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 hath 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 hath 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.

This is my confession [of faith] and to these propositions I give my assent. And I pronounce this with my whole heart, and soul, and mind.

And if at any time by the fraud of the devil (which may God forbid!) I voluntarily or involuntarily shall be opposed to what I have now professed, may I be anathema from the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the Catholic Church and every hierarchical order a stranger.

You'd have to ask a bishop or at least a priest I suppose. It says what you are asking, apparently. The application of such things is way, WAY above my pay grade, so I think it best I don't try to guess any answer.

I have been sharing what priests told me, in the context of myself having been an inquirer and later sincere catechumen, desiring to learn what the Church taught and why - not with a particular desire to oppose. Now that I think of it, they very possibly might have said something else to someone very differently disposed.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Morning Chris,

The iconoclast council of 754 was overturned by the council of 787. Someone who refuses to venerate icons is excommunicated and publicly shunned in order to bring them back to the church. That person (in an Orthodox society in 800AD) would have been pretty challenged in their daily life. Today, it really doesnt mean a whole lot other than within the Orthodox church itself.

This council is referred to during the Feast of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of Lent. Icons are brought in by the congregation and processed through the church, and the list of anathemas and a final concluding statement is read (BTW, sorry about the formatting of this copy and paste)

As the Prophets beheld, As the Apostles taught, As the Church received, As the Teachers dogmatized, As the Universe agreed, As Grace illumined, As the Truth revealed, As falsehood passed way, As Wisdom presented, As Christ awarded,

Thus we declare, Thus we assert, Thus we proclaim Christ our true God and honor His saints,

In words, In writings, In thoughts, In sacrifices, In churches, In holy icons.

On the one hand, worshipping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord.
And on the other hand, honoring and venerating His Saints as true servants of the same Lord.

This is the Faith of the Apostles.
This is the Faith of the Fathers.
This is the Faith of the Orthodox.
This is the Faith which has established the Universe.