The Council determined that the honorary veneration (timētikē proskynēsis) of icons was permitted, and that the true adoration (alēthinē latreia) was reserved for God alone. It further stated that the honor paid to the icon eventually passes over to the individual that it represents, thus, veneration of an icon could not be idolatrous as theiconoclasts believed. The iconodule position was not justified byChristological arguments (as in the Council of Hieria), rather, the antiquity of iconodulia and theIncarnation of Christ, which was said to make acceptable the depiction of Christ, were emphasized.[3][4]
The veneration of icons had been banned by Byzantine EmperorConstantine V and supported by hisCouncil of Hieria (754 AD), which had described itself as the seventh ecumenical council.[5] The Council of Hieria was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea only 33 years later, and has also been rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches, since none of thefive major patriarchs were represented. The emperor's vigorous enforcement of the ban included persecution of those who venerated icons and of monks in general. There were also political overtones to the persecution—images of emperors were still allowed by Constantine, which some opponents saw as an attempt to give wider authority to imperial power than to the saints and bishops.[6] Constantine'siconoclastic tendencies were shared by Constantine's son,Leo IV. After the latter's early death, his widow,Irene of Athens, as regent for her son, began its restoration for personal inclination and political considerations.
On Christmas Day 784, the head of the imperial chancellery,Tarasios, was appointed successor to the iconoclastPatriarch of Constantinople,Paul IV, by Irene. Together they were attempting to solemnize the iconodule reversal of imperial policy with an ecumenical council.Pope Adrian I was invited to participate, and gladly accepted, sending twolegates.[7]
In 786, the council met in theChurch of the Holy Apostles inConstantinople. However, soldiers in collusion with iconoclast bishops entered the church, and broke up the assembly.[8] As a result, Irene resorted to a stratagem. Under the pretext of responding to an alleged Arab attack inAsia Minor, the iconoclastic bodyguard was sent away from the capital—then disarmed and disbanded. Tarasios dealt with the episcopal opposition by allowing notoriously iconoclast bishops to retain their positions so long as they made a public admission of error, and also by disguising two eastern monks as envoys of the patriarchs ofAntioch andJerusalem, to justify the council's claim to ecumenical status.[4]
The Council was again assembled, this time in the symbolic location of Nicaea, the site of the first ecumenical council. The council assembled on 24 September 787 at theHagia Sophia. It numbered about 350 members; 308bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasios presided,[9] and seven sessions were held in Nicaea.[8]
First Session (24 September 787) – There was debate over whether bishops who had accepted iconoclasm when under iconoclast rule could remain in office.
Second Session (26 September 787) – Letters fromPope Adrian I were read out in Greek translation, approving the veneration of images, but severely critical of Byzantine infringement of papal rights. Accepting the letter at the papal legate's prompting, the bishops answered: "We follow, we receive, we admit".
Third Session (28 September 787) – The supposed representatives of the oriental patriarchates presented their credentials. From these it is clear that their patriarchs had not in fact appointed them.
Fourth Session (1 October 787) – Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Exodus 25:19 sqq.; Numbers 7:89; Hebrews 9:5 sqq.; Ezekiel 41:18, and Genesis 31:34, but especially from a series of passages of theChurch Fathers;[2] and from hagiography.
Fifth Session (4 October 787) – A furtherflorilegium was read out, "proving" that iconoclasm originated from pagans,Jews,Muslims, and heretics.
Sixth Session (7 October 787) – The definition of thepseudo-Seventh council (754) and a long refutation of the same (probably by Tarasius) were read.
Seventh Session (13 October 787) – The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images.Hagia Sophia of Nicaea, where the Council took place;Iznik, Turkey.Hagia Sophia, İznik
It was determined that
As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images ofJesus Christ, theVirgin Mary, the holyangels, as well as those of thesaints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone—for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.
This definition of the proper religious veneration of images centers on the distinction betweentimētikē proskynēsis, meaning the "veneration of honour", and "alēthinē latreia", meaning "true adoration". The former is permitted to images in the same way as to other holy things, notably the cross and the gospel-book, while the latter, "latreia", is reserved for God alone. But the statement that follows, to the effect that the honor paid to the image passes over to its prototype implies on the contrary that there are not two different degrees of veneration, but a single veneration that is not idolatrous since it treats the image as a door or window through which the person praying to the image perceives and adores the heavenly personage who is depicted in it. This could not lead to a worship of images of the Godhead in Byzantium, since no attempt was made to represent Godhead in art. But a problem remains over the human nature of Christ, which is certainly represented in art and which at the same time shares fully in the adoration paid to Christ as God: it would be heretical to worship Christ's Godhead but only honour his humanity.
The so-called "Eighth Session" (23 October 787) held in Constantinople at theMagnaura Palace supposedly in the presence of the emperors Constantine IV and Irene. Erich Lamberz has proved that this "session" is a late ninth-century forgery (see Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 655–56). The purpose of the addition was to do justice to the role of the emperors at this ecumenical council as at its predecessors.
The twenty-twocanons[10] drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of thescriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened.
The council also decreed that every altar should contain arelic, which remains the case in modern Catholic and Orthodox regulations (Canon VII), and made a number of decrees on clerical discipline, especially for monks when mixing with women.
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 toPope Adrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). While Adrian's legates were returning from Constantinople to Rome with a copy of theActs of the Council, the deposedLombard kingAdalgis along with a Byzantine expeditionary forcewere disembarking in Italy to drive out the Franks. The proceedings of the Council proclaimed the unity of the Byzantine emperor and pope on iconodulia, intentionally neglecting to mentionCharlemagne,King of the Franks, which enraged the Franks who the Pope was attempting to align himself with. However, the Franks successfully repelled the Byzantine expedition, and Adrian's relations with Charlemagne were restored despite his diplomatic blunder.[11]
The Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at asynod in 794. Charlemagne supported the composition of theLibri Carolini, which was most likely composed in summer 793 by the influential Carolingian theologian,Theodulf of Orléans, inSaint Emmeram's Abbey,Regensburg. The main purpose of the work was to rebut the decrees of the Council, especially the "errors of the Greeks". Modern scholarship tends to judge the Latin translation of theActs, which Theodulf used, to be very poor: "a monument of inadequate translation. Its garbled nature gave rise to outrage among the court theologians"; it is also said to be, "bedeviled by inaccurate and in some cases intentionally incorrect translations". Theodulf's judgment was that Irene's aim was to "promote the superstitious adoration of images" through the council. Theodulf citedChurch Fathers such asAugustine of Hippo as iconoclast witnesses.[12] A copy was sent to Pope Adrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[13] TheLibri would thereafter remain unpublished until theReformation, and the Council was subsequently accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by theCatholic Church. According to theLibri, the ruling of the council against iconoclasm led to "civil war" within the Empire, and other ninth-century iconodule sources condemn clergymen and laymen who remained iconoclasts.[4]
The Council, or rather the final defeat of iconoclasm in 843, is celebrated in theEastern Orthodox Church, andEastern Catholic Churches ofByzantine Rite as "The Sunday of theTriumph of Orthodoxy" each year on the first Sunday ofGreat Lent, the fast that leads up toPascha (Easter), and again on the Sunday closest to 11 October (the Sunday on or after 8 October). The former celebration commemorates the defeat of iconoclasm, while the latter commemorates the council itself. The Papacy did not formally confirm the decrees of the council until 880.
ManyProtestants who follow the French reformerJohn Calvin generally agree in rejecting the canons of the Council, which they believe promoted idolatry. He rejected the distinction between veneration (douleia,proskynēsis) and adoration (latreia) as unbiblical "sophistry" and condemned even the decorative use of images.[14] In subsequent editions of theInstitutes, he cited theLibri Carolini.
It is particularly interesting that fourDalmatian bishops are among the signatories of the synod, whose cities were no longer underByzantine rule.[15][16] These Dalmatian bishoprics had been dissolved earlier. So the question arises of when these bishoprics were re-established in these medieval Dalmatian cities.[16][15]
The four Dalmatian bishops who signed the synod were the following, in order.
“Ioannes episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Salonentianae” (John ofSalona-Split)
“Laurentius episcopus sanctae Absartianensis ecclesiae” (Lawrence ofOsor)
“Ursus episcopus Avaritianensium ecclesiae” (Ursus ofRab)
“Ioannes episcopus Decateron” (John ofKotor)[16][15]
This suggests that new bishoprics was founded or old (Early Christian) episcopal seats were re-established in this area.[16][15] The founding of these bishoprics is attested by the 8th centuryChronicon Gradense. The chronicle reports the foundation of several Dalmatian bishoprics, such as the bishopric of Rab as "Avoriciensis/Avonciensis ecclesia", the foundation of the bishopric ofKrk as "episcopatus in Vegla", the foundation of the bishopric of Osor as "episcopatus in Asparo", and the bishopric ofPićan as "episcopus Pathensis". As the chronicle reports a Dalmatian provincial synod held in the city ofGrado.[15]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Concilium universale Nicaenum Secundum, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ser. 2, vol. 3, in 3 parts, ed. Erich Lamberz, Berlin 2008–2016. Also includes the Latin translation by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.
There are only a few translations of the above Acts in the modern languages.
English translation made in 1850 by an Anglican priest, John Mendham; with notes taken largely from the attack on the council in theLibri Carolini. The aim of the translation was to show how the Catholic veneration of images is based onsuperstition andforgery.
Translation made byKazan Theological Academy (published from 1873 to 1909) – a seriously corrupted translation of the Acts of the Councils into Russian.[17]
A relatively new Vatican's translation (2004) into Italian language. Publishers in Vatican mistakenly thought[18] that they made the first translation of the Acts into European languages.[19]
The new (2016) Russian version of the Acts of the Council is a revised version of the translation made by Kazan Theological Academy, specifying the cases of corruption by the Orthodox translators.[20] There are several dozens of such cases, some of them are critical.
^Council of Hieria, Canon 19, "If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754.asp
^abcdBasić, Ivan (2018).New evidence for the re-establishment of the Adriatic dioceses in the late eighth century. Oxford: Routledge. pp. 261–287.ISBN978-1-138-22594-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
^See: N. Tanner, "Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo, Tomi I–III, introduzione e traduzione di Pier Giorgio Di Domenico, saggio encomiastico di Crispino Valenziano", in "Gregorianum", N. 86/4, Rome, 2005, p. 928.
^Catholic Church, Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004)ISBN9788820976491
^Firsov, Evgeniĭ Vasilʹevich (2016).Акты Второго Никейского (Седьмого Вселенского) собора (787 г.).ISBN9785446908912.
Auzépy, Marie-France (2008). "State of emergency (700–850)". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.).The Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire (c. 500–1492). Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-83231-1.
Calvin, John,Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), translated by Henry Beveridge (1845). Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
McCormick, Michael (2008). "Western Approaches (700–900)". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.).The Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire (c. 500–1492). Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-83231-1.
.jpg)
