Conclusions from "The Acceptance of the Iconoclasts on the Basis of the Ecclesiology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council"

The Church, as the body of Christ, possesses a given, indivisible, and unchanging life, which, as a timeless tradition, is transmitted unchanged through the flow of conventional historical time. This reality constitutes for the faithful a participatory and truth-bearing life, which dynamically leads them toward the prospect of charismatic adoption and endless assimilation to the prototype of their original creation. In this perspective, man regains the lost, prelapsarian integrity of human nature, which is expressed as the natural functioning of all God-given inherent powers, and, consequently, as a transcendence of postlapsarian divisions.

The interpretation of ecclesiastical life through philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions gives rise, throughout time, to heretical notions, whose main characteristics are the fragmentation of its catholicity, discontinuity, and clear differentiation from the continuity of the living ecclesiastical tradition. [750] The criterion of authenticity for the faith being expressed is its complete identification with the timeless ecclesiastical tradition, as this was crystallized in the patristic literature and in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils.

One such case of heretical hermeneutics of the life of the Church was iconoclasm. Initially, this issue of the veneration of icons arose as a personal interpretation on the part of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian. It was the emperor’s personal “orthodoxy,” which the ecclesiastical body was “obliged” to adopt as well. Iconoclasm, from its very inception and from the first iconoclastic initiatives of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, was perceived by the Church as an external, violent intervention of the state in a matter of faith that concerned the Church exclusively, and for this reason, it was not accepted. The defense of the iconoclastic movement took on a more aggressive character, especially during the reign of his son and successor to the imperial throne, Constantine V. Seeing the non-acceptance of iconoclasm by a large portion of the empire, Constantine sought to clothe the entire movement in theological justification and synodal legitimacy. Prior to this, and especially through the pen of Presbyter [St.] John of Damascus, three apologetic discourses had been written in defense of the icons, in which the entire theology of depiction was presented, based on the firm foundation of Chalcedonian Christology. Given the existence of solid argumentation on the Orthodox side, Constantine attempted to support iconoclasm theologically by proposing a different kind of Christology, whose main feature was the universally indescribable nature of Christ. Through various misinterpretations and distortions of texts, an effort was made to ascribe the property of indescribability also to Christ’s human nature, in violation of the attributes of created reality. This Christological divergence, which would justify the inability to depict Christ, was also expressed synodally at the iconoclastic council of Hieria in 754. The other patriarchates had from the beginning rejected the iconoclastic movement and severed ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This created, as a result, a problematic ecclesiastical situation marked by division and intense persecution of iconophile Orthodox. The monks, as the foremost defenders of the icons, bore the full severity of imperial policy, which of course aimed at the domination of iconoclasm.

The circumstances change drastically, however, when power inevitably passes into the hands of the iconophile Empress Irene of Athens, who served as regent for her underage son after the death of her husband, Leo IV. Tarasios, also an iconophile, a man of deep theological education and many innate abilities, is elected and ordained as Patriarch. The demand of the times was the overturning of the iconoclastic decisions and the restoration of peaceful relations among the Churches. The Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 worked toward this goal with theological seriousness and on the basis of the living ecclesiastical tradition.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, analyzing the criteria and theological presuppositions of the iconoclasts, observes that in the iconoclastic formulations, ancient heresies are revived with a strong Manichaean underpinning. The identification of nature and hypostasis on the part of the iconoclasts resulted in a consequent confusion between image and idol. Within this framework, the iconoclasts are noted to align simultaneously with two opposing Christologies: the Severian and the Nestorian. Under this philosophical regime, it would certainly never be possible to make any further distinction between natural and artificial image.

The natural image refers to the consubstantial relationship between prototype and image, with the simultaneous distinction of hypostases. On the other hand, the artificial image, while expressing the relationship between prototype and image, is based on the hypostatic identity of the two, with the simultaneous otherness of their natures. The iconoclasts, having dualism as a given in their theological reasoning, refused to accept the charismatic presence of the prototype in its iconographic depiction. Matter was considered by them as inherently dishonorable in creation and incapable of being energetically connected with the good Triune God. Under these presuppositions, they regarded the depiction of Christ and His saints as blasphemous and contrary to tradition, and consequently viewed any veneration of their images as idolatrous. Relying on the Lord’s words from the Mystical Supper, they expressed the opinion that the only true and divinely-instituted image of the Body of Christ was the Eucharistic bread, which they called a “designated body” (θέσει σώμα). This view, however, nullifies the hypostatic and real presence of Christ in the celebration of the Divine Eucharist, given that a designated body cannot at the same time be a natural body. Additionally, they did not refer to an image of Christ, but to an image of the body of Christ.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, by thoroughly refuting the iconoclastic definition of the Council of Hieria, established iconoclasm as a clear Christological heresy, numbering the iconoclasts alongside the known heresiarchs of the past, having as their common denominator the nullification of the consequences of the incarnate Economy of the Word. The consistent outcome of all heresies is the nullification of soteriology and its replacement with vague formulations.

According to the texts of the acts of the Council as well as the broader body of polemical literature that developed, it becomes clear that the issue of iconoclasm was a purely dogmatic problem, which did not concern the Church externally, but altered from within and from the foundations the entire ecclesiastical structure. On this basis, views which regard iconoclasm as an expression of a “liturgical and not dogmatic problem” [751] are rather personal opinions, which find no confirmation in the existing sources.

During the course of the Council, the bishops’ responsible teaching role was formulated and emphatically underscored, expressed through the unity of institution and charisma in episcopal authority. Without exception, the emergence of schismatic or heretical dimensions presupposes the prior rupture of this higher unifying bond. In the case of the iconoclastic heresy, this bond was clearly broken, and for that reason, novel teachings arose that opposed both the letter and the spirit of the timeless ecclesiastical tradition, presenting another Christ, another Church, and another soteriology. The Council, above all, healed these problematic and corrosive conditions, accepting the repentance of those bishops who wished to return to the mindset and life of the Catholic Church, while at the same time, in view of the faith being injured by heresy, it articulated “what the mindset (φρόνημα) of the Catholic Church truly is.” [752] On this basis, the ecclesiological framework and the conditions for the non-reordination of heretics are clarified.

The acceptance of the repentance of the former iconoclast bishops and their restoration to their episcopal thrones without reordination took place under clear conditions and within a specific ecclesiological framework. The acceptance of their return concerns eleven (11) cases of former iconoclast bishops, all of whom, without exception, had been ordained as bishops of the Catholic Church. A decisive role in the interpretation and understanding of the manner of their acceptance is played by the prior understanding of the term “heretic”, by which the iconoclasts are characterized. It must be emphasized that the case of the iconoclasts concerns bishops who had not been synodally condemned, and for that reason no discussion whatsoever took place on the basis of valid or invalid mysteries. The mysteries are considered undoubtedly valid, since they were celebrated within the bosom of the Catholic Church. In this context, the performance of reordination would have been inconceivable, as it would undermine the indelible character of their existing episcopal ordination and would imply, in a sense, an “addition of grace,” something ecclesiologically untenable. The iconoclastic, novel theological positions had separated them from the mindset and communion of the Catholic Church, and for this reason the Council, referring to these cases, notes that “the hierarchs have become heresiarchs.” [753] Any insistence on the iconoclastic framework after the convening of the Seventh Ecumenical Council—which would express the Church’s faith with every possible clarity—would be interpreted as their voluntary severance from the body of the Church and as their definitive deposition from the episcopal office. Their repentance was accepted, and their subsequent episcopal restoration took place under the aforementioned clear ecclesiological conditions.

In conclusion, the Seventh Ecumenical Council—aligned with, following, and numbered among the preceding six Ecumenical Councils—received, by economia, the repentant former iconoclast bishops, in the manner the Church has always acted. Possessing a clear ecclesiological framework and regarding the canonical and charismatic boundaries of the Church as identical, it restored to the episcopacy bishops who, being synodally uncondemned, remained within those boundaries and bore episcopacy from ordination performed within the Church. It is clear that this process cannot be applied to ordinations performed outside the bounds of the Catholic Church, in known heretical communities. In such cases, there are no Mysteries, and no priesthood that partakes of the High Priesthood of Christ. In these circumstances, the twofold meaning of the term heretic is confused and not clarified, resulting in confusion and the drawing of erroneous conclusions. The acceptance of such ordinations represents the exact reverse course from that of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, by which the practice of non-reordination—when judged as a settled norm—would imply the equalization of the Mysteries of the Church with the various rites of the heterodox communities. In this view, the boundaries of the Church’s faith are completely dissolved, and no distinction can be made between Orthodoxy and heresy. Outwardly, it appears as though space is being granted within the Church for heretical notions to enter unconditionally, coexisting as accepted differences alongside Orthodoxy. However, within this framework, peace cannot be achieved, but rather the deepening of division.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council brought peace to the prevailing situation on the basis of the unity of the faith and the continuous tradition: "And indeed, having followed the apostolic and patristic traditions—we dare to say, having come to agreement by the harmony of the All-Holy Spirit—and all of us having been brought into concord with one another, holding in common the tradition of the Catholic Church, we have come into agreement with the definitions laid down by the six holy Ecumenical Councils, […] in order that, shaking off the division of the Churches, we might draw what was separated toward unity, and tear apart and rend the ragged and tangled garment—woven of thorny threads—namely, the false teaching, and broaden the robe of Orthodoxy." [754]

 

FOOTNOTES

750. See Nikolaos R. Xionis, On the Holy Spirit, that He is also God and from God by nature, p. 14: "…an essential and necessary presupposition for the understanding of dogma is the experience of the revealed God within the Church. This means that the approach to the mystery of the revelation of the Triune God becomes possible not through speculative and dialectical philosophical thought, which clearly has a subjective character and is subject to doubt and questioning of the data of historical-sensible reality, but through divine grace and the illumination of the intellect by the Holy Spirit…"

751. See Eleni Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Why Byzantium, publ. Ellinika Grammata, Athens 20095, p. 165: Eleni Glykatzi-Ahrweiler expresses the opinion that the Council of Constantinople of 680/681 constitutes "the last truly Ecumenical Council." Continuing her reasoning, she notes: "The attentive reader will have noticed that I do not even mention the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt with the iconoclast controversy, and this is because I consider the iconoclastic dispute as an expression of a liturgical and not a doctrinal problem. I would even dare to say that iconoclasm is, as I have written elsewhere, the ecclesiastical form of cultural, as well as socio-economic differences and trends of the opposing groups, which due to their historical traditions had a different stance on the issue of the depiction of the divine; I mean here that the eastern provinces had, unlike Italy, Greece, and the islands, predominantly aniconic tendencies. And this is because their populations were more influenced by Jewish, and even Islamic, elements, and not, as in the case of the European territory of Byzantium, by the classical Greco-Roman devotional models of depicting the divine." See also ibid., p. 169: "This brief overview of the Christological controversy, which culminated in the formulation of the dogma, leaves one question unanswered: why is the Feast of Orthodoxy in the official Church identified with the restoration of the icons, that is, with the end of iconoclasm? I have already emphasized and I repeat here that the controversy over the icons had a liturgical and not a doctrinal character."

752. Act I, Lamberz I, p. 48.

753. LETTER OF TARASIUS AND THE COUNCIL TO THE EMPERORS, Lamberz III, p. 860.

754 Ibid.

 

Source: Η αποδοχή των εικονομάχων επί τη βάσει της εκκλησιολογίας της Ζ΄ Οικουμενικής Συνόδου [The Acceptance of the Iconoclasts on the Basis of the Ecclesiology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council], by Vasileios Touloumtsis, postgraduate thesis, Department of Theology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2020, pp. 241-246.