1. Historical frame

Since 726 the Byzantine Empire was preoccupied with the matter of Iconoclasm. Emperor Leo III was opposed to the adoration of images as being adversative to the explicit prohibition of the Old Testament to worship depictions of God and material objects.¹ It has been supported that the first attack on images was initiated by the Arab caliph Yazīd, who destroyed images of Christian churches in his territory. The ideas of the caliph were transmitted to the bishop of Nakoleia, Constantine. Earlier than 726 the emperor had met Constantine in Constantinople and had probably been influenced by his ideas. However, it is more likely that Leo was influenced at a young age by the Monophysites and the Paulicians of Asia Minor, where he started his military career.

After 730 the emperor condemned the adoration of images, but did not persecute the Iconophiles. The protagonist in the ideological conflict for the images during the first period of Iconoclasm was John of Damascus, who had greater freedom of action since he lived in Muslim environment, outside the Byzantine territory. This fact rather excludes the theory that the iconoclastic ideology appeared under Arabic affect. The Iconophiles believed that images served an instructive aim like the Gospels, which taught and inspired the population.

After the decision of the Council of 754 and contrary to Leo III, his son and successor Constantine V organised a systematic persecution against the Iconophile monks and their partisans, mainly in Asia Minor. A cessation of the persecutions took place after 775, when Leo V (775-780), assumed the power and mainly after 780, when the widow of the latter, Eirene Athenaia, undertook the tutelage of her under aged son, emperor Constantine VI(780-797). The main objective of the empress’ internal policy was the restoration of images.

2. The Council

The death of the patriarch of Constantinople Paul IV in 784 offered a suitable opportunity to find a solution for the matter of Iconoclasm. Eirene chose for the patriarchal throne her secretary Tarasios, who was willing to contribute in the collaboration between state and church. The presentation of the new patriarch before a great assembly of hierarchs was combined with the first percussion for a change in the policy on images. Tarasios declared that it was necessary to convene an Ecumenical council, since the prohibition of the adoration of images and the persecution of Iconophiles had been ratified by the session of 754.² Tarasios was elected patriarch during the Christmas of 784 under the recognition of Pope Hadrian I (771-795) and without great reaction on behalf of the Iconoclasts.

After systematic dogmatic – but not also political – preparation, the work of the Council began in July 786 in the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. The soldiers of the tagmata, however, remained faithful to the memory of Constantine V and his iconoclastic policy, and, with the incentive of their officers, invaded the church threatening with the use of violence in case the session would continue. The patriarch with the Iconophile hierarchs were hidden in the sanctuary, but the Iconoclast bishops collaborated with the soldiers and the council was dissolved. The empress had not taken into account the reaction of the military units in the capital that had been enlisted by Constantine V. Thus in September the 786, alleging a big expedition against the Arabs, she ordered the transfer of the tagmata to Asia Minor, while their place in Constantinople was taken by soldiers of the themes. The empress advanced then in the demobilization of Iconoclast men in the tagmata, and in May 787, she convened again the Ecumenical council. For greater safety, Eirene transferred the council in Nicaea of Bithynia, where Constantine the Great had convened the First Ecumenical Council.³

From 24 September until 13 October 787 seven sessions took place in the church of Hagia Sophia in Nicaea. The participants were patriarch Tarasios, 350 bishops and metropolitans,⁴ two representatives of the pope of Rome, representatives of the patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, high government officials and many monks. The final session took place on October 23 in 787 in Constantinople, in the Palace of Magnaura, in the presence of the emperors Constantine and Eirene, who signed its decisions.⁵ The empress and the patriarch were in favour of a more lenient solution, namely to maintain the Iconoclast bishops in their seats, because they believed that the iconoclastic policy was propagated at some way through violence and this moment was not suitable for radical liquidation.

3. Dogmatic conflicts

As mentioned earlier, moderate opinions finally prevailed on the dogmatic level, but the controversy during the sessions was intense.⁶ The decisions of the iconoclastic council of 754 were cancelled, but the most important question to answer was how correct was to portray God, Virgin Mary and the Saints. Both parties agreed that the divine nature cannot be depicted, however the Iconophiles stressed that Christ, who was simultaneously God and human, could “be depicted” because of his human form. The Iconophiles replied that the separation of the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, led to Nestorianism.⁷ Tarasios rejected this point of view arguing that Jesus can be portrayed during His Incarnation on earth and thus there is no question of segregating his two natures. According to the last argument, the image of Christ would lead the faithful to the understanding of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, stressing the instructive role of religious art. Another strong argument of the Iconoclasts was that images did not exist in the Church in the early period and that the adoration of natural and material objects was pagan according to the Old Testament. In order to answer to this, the Iconophiles made a careful distinction between image and prototype. “Veneration and honour” should be attributed to the image, while to the prototype is attributed adoration and truth.

The decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on images possess an important place in the history of the Church, particularly in the field of Christology. In previous Ecumenical Councils (431, 553 and 680/1) the divine nature of Christ was particularly discussed. Their decisions led many theologians to Monophysitism, so that they believed that Christ is not depicted, even after His Incarnation. In 787, however, the apologists of images proved that in the earthly life of Christ people saw only Jesus-human and his divine nature was obvious only in his miracles. The Council of Nicaea declared that, if somebody denies the depiction of the Son, denies also His Incarnation, and therefore the Gospel and the salvation itself, symbol of which is the incarnated form of Christ. Both parties, in order to prevail, forged, adulterated and perverted many texts.

The more important outcome of the Second Council of Nicaea was probably the careful distinction between adoration and honorary veneration. The restoration of images became a symbol of Orthodoxy, but after the Iconoclastic Period, remained a dogmatic fear towards the unnecessary respect of material objects until the middle of the 19^th century, when a new dynamic in the adoration of miraculous images emerges in Russia and the Mount Athos.

4. Consequences