December 754 A.D. Iconoclastic
Council of Constantinople, 754 A.D.
EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC
CONCILIABULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.
THE
DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD.
The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace
of God and most pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors,
Constantine and Leo,(2) now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the
temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in
Blachernae, have decreed as follows.
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the
creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to
undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son,
who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the
worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving
doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church,
his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy
Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the
before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this
adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of
Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry
with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has
he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and
endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy
Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the
deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved
bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the
deceitful colouring of the pictures ( omoiwmatwn ) which draws down the spirit
of man from the lofty adoration ( latreias ) of God to the low and material
adoration ( latreian ) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance,
might express their view on the subject.
Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its
338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully
the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In
the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.
After we had carefully examined their decrees
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of
painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our
salvation--namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy
synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of
God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus,
because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with
all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate
these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six
Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling
in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of
the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly
of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be
depicted--that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which
should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an
image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently
it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in
his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be
represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of
a double blasphemy--the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by
mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who
venerate
544
the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because
they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the
Acephali. 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 wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the
Godhead of the Son and the dulness 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
personality 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 depicted, and
mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), 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, however, 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. Bread he
ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that
idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also
this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of
the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the
priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it.
The evil custom of assigning names to the images
does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have
these left behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made
anything else than ordinary matter.
If, however, some say, we might be right in regard
to the images of Christ, on account of the mysterious union of the two natures,
but it is not right for us to forbid also the images of the altogether spotless
and ever-glorious Mother of God, of the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who
were mere men and did not consist of two natures; we may reply, first of all:
If those fall away, there is no longer need of these. But we will also consider
what may be said against these in particular. Christianity has rejected the whole
of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen
worship of images. The Saints live on eternally with God, although they have
died. If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art,
discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares
attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above
all heavens and the Saints? It is not permitted to Christians, who have the
hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshippers, and to
insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter.
Moreover, we can prove our view by Holy Scripture
and the Fathers. In the former it is said: "God is a Spirit: and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" and: "Thou
shall not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath;" on which account God spoke
to the Israelites on the Mount, from the midst of the fire, but showed them no
image. Further: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man,... and served the creature more than the
Creator." [Several other passages, even less to the point, are cited.]
545
The same is taught also by the holy Fathers. [The
Synod appeals to a spurious passage from Epiphanius and to one inserted into
the writings of Theodotus of Ancyra, a friend of St. Cyril's; to utterances--in
no way striking--of Gregory of Nazianzum, of SS. Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius
of Amphilochius and of Eusebius Pamphili, from his Letter to the Empress
Constantia, who had asked him for a picture of Christ.]
Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers,
we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be
rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness
which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of
painters.
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or
to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses
it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or
layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as
an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers.
At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under
pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the
holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with
figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths,
and all that is dedicated to divine service. If, however, the incumbent of a
church wishes to have such church vessels and vestments altered, he must do
this only with the assent of the holy Ecumenical patriarch and at the bidding
of our pious Emperors. So also no prince or secular official shall rob the
churches, as some have done in former times, under the pretext of destroying
images. All this we ordain, believing that we speak as doth the Apostle, for we
also believe that we have the spirit of Christ; and as our predecessors who
believed the same thing spake what they had synodically defined, so we believe
and therefore do we speak, and set forth a definition of what has seemed good
to us following and in accordance with the definitions of our Fathers.
(1) If anyone shall not confess, according to the
tradition of the Apostles and Fathers, in the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost one godhead, nature and substance, will and operation, virtue and
dominion, kingdom and power in three subsistences, that is in their most
glorious Persons, let him be anathema.
(2) If anyone does not confess that one of the
Trinity was made flesh, let him be anathema.
(3) If anyone does not confess that the holy Virgin
is truly the Mother of God, etc.
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God
and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of
the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in
Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is
seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and
that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(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.
(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the
forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no
value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not
rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc.
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation
of Saints, etc.
(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the
dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless
torment and endless bliss, etc.
(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!
[Then follows the prohibition of the making or
teaching any other faith, and the penalties for disobedience. After this follow
the acclamations.]
The divine Kings Constantine and Leo said: Let the
holy and ecumenical synod say, if with the consent of all the most holy bishops
the definition just read has been set forth.
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we
all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily
subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They
are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve
your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two
natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the
heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [ mansour , John
Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood!
Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the
Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the
betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the
perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these
three!(1)
from The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1955), XIV, pp 543-44
EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM STYLING ITSELF THE
SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, BUT COMMONLY CALLED THE MOCK SYNOD OF
CONSTANTINOPLE. AD 754
The
reader will find all the information he desires with regard to the great
iconoclastic controversy in the ordinary church-histories, and the theological
side of the matter in the writings of St. John Damascene. It seems, however,
that in order to render the meaning of the action of the last of the Ecumenical
Councils clear it is necessary to provide an account of the synod which was
held to condemn what it so shortly afterward expressly approved. I quote from
Hefele in loco, and would only further draw the reader's attention to the fact
that the main thing objected to was not (as is commonly supposed) the outward
veneration of the sacred icons, but the making and setting up of them, as
architectural ornaments; and that it was not only representations of the
persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and of the Divine Son in his incarnate form
that were denounced, but even pictures of the Blessed Virgin and of the other
saints; all this is evident to anyone reading the foregoing abstract of the
decree.
547
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 308
et seqq.)
The Emperor, after the death of the Patriarch Anastasius (A.D. 753), summoned
the bishops of his Empire to a great synod in the palace Hieria, which lay
opposite to Constantinople on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, between
Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, a little to the north of the latter. The vacancy of
the patriarchate, facilitated his plans, since the hope of succeeding to this
see kept down, in the most ambitious and aspiring of the bishops, any possible
thought of opposition. The number of those present amounted to 338 bishops, and
the place of president was occupied by Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus,
already known to us as son of a former Emperor--Apsimar, from the beginning an
assistant in the iconoclastic movement. Nicephorus names him alone as president
of the synod; Theophanes, on the contrary, mentions Bishop Pastillas of Perga
as second president, and adds, "The Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented [the last three were then in the
hands of the Saracens], the transactions began on February 10th, and lasted
until August 8th (in Hieria); on the latter date, however, the synod assembled
in St. Mary's Church in Blachernae, the northern suburb of Constantinople, and
the Emperor now solemnly nominated Bishop Constantine of Sylaeum, a monk, as
patriarch of Constantinople. On August 27th, the heretical decree [of the
Synod] was published."
We see from this that the last sessions of this
Conciliabulum were held no longer in Hieria, but in the Blachernae of
Constantinople. We have no complete Acts of this assembly, but its very verbose
oros (decree), together with a short introduction, is preserved among the acts
of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
This decree was by no means suffered to remain
inoperative.
(W. M. Sinclair. Smith and Wace, Dictionary of
Chr. Biog., sub voce Constantinus VI.)
The Emperor singled out the more noted monks, and required them to comply with
the decrees of the synod. In A.D. 766 he exacted an oath against images from
all the inhabitants of the empire. The monks refused with violent obstinacy,
and Copronymus appears to have amused himself by treating them with ruthless
harshness. The Emperor, indeed, seems to have contemplated the extirpation of
monachism. John the Damascene he persuaded his bishops to excommunicate. Monks
were forced to appear in the hippodrome at Constantinople hand in hand with
harlots, while the populace spat at them. The new patriarch Constantinus,
presented by the emperor to the council the last day of its session, was forced
to foreswear images, to attend banquets, to eat and drink freely against his
monastic vows, to wear garlands, to witness the coarse spectacles and hear the
coarse language which entertained the Emperor. Monasteries were destroyed, made
into barracks, or secularized. Lachanodraco, governor of the Thracian Theme,
seems to have exceeded Copronymus in his ribaldry and injustice. He collected a
number of monks into a plain, clothed them with white, presented them with
wives, and forced them to choose between marriage and loss of eyesight. He sold
the property of the monasteries, and sent the price to the Emperor.Copronymus
publicly thanked him, and commended his example to other governors.
(Harnack. History of Dogma, Vol. V., p. 325 [Eng.
Tr.].)
The clergy obeyed when the decrees were published; but resistance was offered
in the ranks of the monks. Many took to flight, some became martyrs. The
imperial police stormed the churches, and destroyed those images and pictures
that had not been secured. The iconoclastic zeal by no means sprang from enthusiasm
for divine service in spirit and in truth. The Emperor now also directly
attacked the monks; he meant to extirpate the hated order, and to overthrow the
throne of Peter. We see how the idea of an absolute military state rose
powerfully in Constantinople; how it strove to establish itself by brute force.
The Emperor, according to trustworthy evidence, made the inhabitants of the
city swear
548
that they would henceforth worship no image, and
give up all intercourse with monks. Cloisters were turned into arsenals and
barracks, relics were hurled into the sea, and the monks, as far as possible,
secularized. And the politically far-seeing Emperor, at the same time entered
into correspondence with France (Synod of Gentilly, A.D. 767), and sought to
win Pepin. History seemed to have suffered a violent rupture, a new era was
dawning which should supersede the history of the Church.
But the Church was too powerful, and the Emperor
was not even master of Oriental Christendom, but only of part of it. The orthodox
Patriarchs of the East (under the rule of Islam) declared against the
iconoclastic movement, and a Church without monks or pictures, in schism with
the other orthodox Churches, was a nonentity. A spiritual reformer was wanting.
Thus the great reaction set in after the death of the Emperor (A.D. 775), the
ablest ruler Constantinople had seen for a long time. This is not the place to
describe how it was inaugurated and cautiously carried out by the skilful
policy of the Empress Irene; cautiously, for a generation had already grown up
that was accustomed to the cultus without images. An important part was played
by the miracles performed by the re-emerging relics and pictures. But the lower
classes had always been really favourable to them; only the army and the not
inconsiderable number of bishops who were of the school of Constantine had to
be carefully handled. Tarasius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople and a
supporter of images, succeeded, after overcoming much difficulty, and
especially distrust in Rome and the East, after also removing the excited army,
in bringing together a General Council of about 350 bishops at Nicaea, A.D.
787, which reversed the decrees of A.D. 754. The proceedings of the seven
sittings are of great value, because very important patristic passages have
been preserved in them which otherwise would have perished; for at this synod
also the discussions turned chiefly on the Fathers. The decision ( oros )
restored orthodoxy and finally settled it.
I cannot do better than to cite in conclusion the
words of the profoundly learned [Anglican!] Archbishop of Dublin, himself a
quasi-Iconoclast.
(Trench. Lect. Medieval Ch. Hist., p. 93.)
It is only fair to state that the most zealous favourers and promoters of this
ill-directed homage always disclaimed with indignation the charge of offering
to the images any reverence which did not differ in kind, and not merely in
degree, from the worship which they offered to Almighty God, designating it as
they did by altogether a different name. We shall very probably feel that in
these distinctions which they drew between the one and the other, between the
"honour" which they gave to these icons and the "worship"
which they withheld from these and gave only to God, there lay no slightest
justification of that in which they allowed themselves; but these distinctions
acquit them of idolatry, and it is the merest justice to remember this.
(Trench. Ut supra, p. 99.)
I can close this Lecture with no better or wiser words than those with which
Dean Milman reads to us the lesson of this mournful story: "There was this
irremediable weakness in the cause of iconoclasm; it was a mere negative
doctrine, a proscription of those sentiments which had full possession of the
popular mind, without any strong countervailing excitement. The senses were
robbed of their habitual and cherished objects of devotion, but there was no
awakening of an inner life of intense and passionate piety. The cold, naked
walls from whence the Scriptural histories had been effaced, the despoiled
shrines, the mutilated images, could not compel the mind to a more pure and
immaterial conception of God and the Saviour. Hatred of images, in the process
of the strife, might become, as it did, a fanaticism, it could never become a
religion. Iconoclasm might proscribe idolatry; but it had no power of kindling
a purer faith."
This
text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection
of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine
history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic
form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic
copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.
If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is
granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Feb 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment