The Image Controversy (the Iconoclasts)
At the beginning of the 8th century, Leo III, emperor of the
Eastern Roman empire, attacked the use of images as aids in
worship. As such, he was the first leader of the iconoclasts
(image breakers). Statues and icons of Jesus, Mary, and
various other holy men and women were being used as aids in
worship, and many ordinary Christians were failing to
distinguish between the spiritual reality represented by the
image and the image itself. Leo III came into power after a
series of military defeats. There was also a major
earthquake at the beginning of his reign. Some scholars have
speculated the Leo launched his attack on the use of images
because he felt that these disasters were the result of God's
judgement. Other scholars think that he might have yielded
to pressure from Jews and Muslims who stated that Christians
were no longer obeying the commandment against idolatry. In
any case, Leo III and successors for the next century or so
fought against the use of images in worship. In 753,
Constantine V, Leo's son, called a synod at which a gathering
of 338 bishops produced the statement below:
The Synod of Constantinople (Hiera, 753 AD)
When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the
divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they
take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of
Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a
Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh
was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation,
perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly
divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart?
So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between
the Godhead of the Son and the dullness of the flesh. As the
human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is
the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the
same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and
the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the
soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the
soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the
body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his
passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do
the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and
represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall
into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from
the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a per-
sonality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a
fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as
not being made divine, that which has been made divine by
being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image
of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be de-
picted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Mono-
physites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made
divine and separate and as a person apart, like the
Nestorians.
The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, how-
ever, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no
other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to
represent his incarnation . . .
Thirty-five years later, Irene, the regent for Constantine
VI, called another council at which 350 bishops repudiated
the decision documented above. The result of their
deliberations is given below:
Council of Nicaea (7th Ecumenical,787 AD)
To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the
ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in
writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial
representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of
the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but
especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of
God is shown forth as real and not merely fantastic, for
these have mutual indications and without doubt have also
mutual significations.
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, eth 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
holy churches 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
honorable reverence not indeed that true worship of faith
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 pious
custom. For the honor 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 . . .
. to the poor original poster, who's gotten hacked up a bit for it, and to those reading it, to save their poor eyes. 
