CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: ICONOCLASM
Iconoclasm
Iconoclasm (<Eikonoklasmos>, "Image-breaking") is the name of the heresy that in the
eighth and ninth centuries disturbed the peace of the Eastern Church, caused the last of
the many breaches with Rome that prepared the way for the schism of Photius, and
was echoed on a smaller scale in the Frankish kingdom in the West. The story in the
East is divided into two separate persecutions of the Catholics, at the end of each of
which stands the figure of an image-worshipping Empress (Irene and Theodora).
I. THE FIRST ICONOCLAST PERSECUTION
The origin of the movement against the worship (for the use of this word see IMAGES,
VENERATION OF) of images has been much discussed. It has been represented as an
effect of Moslem influence. To Moslems, any kind of picture, statue, or representation
of the human form is an abominable idol. It is true that, in a sense, the Khalifa at
Damascus began the whole disturbance, and that the Iconoclast emperors were
warmly applauded and encouraged in their campaign by their rivals at Damascus. On
the other hand it is not likely that the chief cause of the emperors zeal against pictures
was the example of his bitter enemy, the head of the rival religion. A more probable
origin will be found in the opposition to pictures that had existed for some time among
Christians. There seems to have been a dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their
use was, or might become, idolatrous among certain Christians for many centuries
before the Iconoclast persecution began (see IMAGES, VENERATION OF). The
Paulicians, as part of their heresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is
bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and
relics, should be abolished. To honour the Cross was especially reprehensible, since
Christ had not really been crucified. Since the seventh century these heretics had been
allowed to have occasional great influence at Constantinople intermittently with
suffering very cruel persecution (see PAULICIANS). But some Catholics, too shared
their dislike of pictures and relics. In the beginning of the eighth century several
bishops, Constantine of Nacolia in Phrygia, Theodosius of Ephesus, Thomas of
Claudiopolis, and others are mentioned as having these views. A Nestorian bishop,
Xenaeas of Hierapolis, was a conspicuous forerunner of the Iconoclasts (Hardouin, IV,
306). It was when this party got the ear of the Emperor Leo III (the Isaurian, 716-41)
that the persecution began.
The first act in the story is a similar persecution in the domain of the Khalifa at
Damascus. Yezid I (680-683) and his successors, especially Yezid II (720-24), thinking,
like good Moslems, that all pictures are idols, tried to prevent their use among even
their Christian subjects. But this Moslem persecution, in itself only one of many such
intermittent annoyances to the Christians of Syria, is unimportant except as the
forerunner of the troubles in the empire. Leo the Isaurian was a valiant soldier with an
autocratic temper. Any movement that excited his sympathy was sure to be enforced
sternly and cruelly. He had already cruelly persecuted the Jews and Paulicians. He
was also suspected of leanings towards Islam. The Khalifa Omar II (717-20) tried to
convert him, without success except as far as persuading him that pictures are idols.
The Christian enemies of images, notably Constantine of Nacolia, then easily gained
his ear. The emperor came to the conclusion that images were the chief hindrance to
the conversion of Jews and Moslems, the cause of superstition, weakness, and division
in his empire, and opposed to the First Commandment. The campaign against images
as part of a general reformation of the Church and State. Leo III's idea was to purify
the Church, centralize it as much as possible under the Patriarch of Constantinople,
and thereby strengthen and centralize the State of the empire. There was also a strong
rationalistic tendency among there Iconoclast emperors, a reaction against the forms of
Byzantine piety that became more pronounced each century. This rationalism helps to
explain their hatred of monks. Once persuaded, Leo began to enforce his idea
ruthlessly. Constantine of Nacolia came to the capital in the early part of his reign; at
the same time John of Synnada wrote to the patriarch Germanus I (715-30), warning
him that Constantine had made a disturbance among the other bishops of the province
by preaching against the use of holy pictures. Germanus, the first of the heroes of the
image-worshippers (his letters in Hardouin, IV 239-62), then wrote a defence of the
practice of the Church addressed to another Iconoclast, Thomas of Claudiopolis (l. c.
245-62). But Constantine and Thomas had the emperor on their side. In 726 Leo III
published an edict declaring images to be idols, forbidden by Exodus, xx, 4, 5, and
commanding all such images in churches to be destroyed. At once the soldiers began
to carry out his orders, whereby disturbances were provoked throughout the empire.
There was a famous picture of Christ, called <Christos antiphonetes>, over the gate of
the palace at Constantinople. The destruction of this picture provoked a serious riot
among the people. Germanus, the patriarch, protested against the edict and appealed
to the pope (729). But the emperor deposed him as a traitor (730) and had Anastasius
(730-54), formerly syncellus of the patriarchal Court, and a willing instrument of the
Government, appointed in his place. The most steadfast opponents of the Iconoclasts
throughout this story were the monks. It is true that there were some who took the
side of the emperor but as a body Eastern monasticism was steadfastly loyal to the old
custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined with his Iconoclasm a fierce persecution of
monasteries and eventually tried to suppress monasticism altogether.
The pope at that time was Gregory II (713-31). Even before he had received the appeal
of Germanus a letter came from the emperor commanding him to accept the edict,
destroy images at Rome, and summon a general council to forbid their use. Gregory
answered, in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference
between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand it.
He describes the lawful use of, and reverence paid to, pictures by Christians. He
blames the emperor's interference in ecclesiastical matters and his persecution of
image-worshippers. A council is not wanted; all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing
the peace of the Church. As for Leo's threat that he will come to Rome, break the
statue of St. Peter (apparently the famous bronze statue in St. Peter's), and take the
pope prisoner, Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the
Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now abhorrent to all Christians
was Constans's persecution of Martin I. He also says that all people in the West detest
the emperor's action and will never consent to destroy their images at his command
(Greg. II, "Ep. I ad Leonem"). The emperor answered, continuing his argument by
saying that no general council had yet said a word in favour of images that he himself
is emperor and priest (<basileus kai lereus>) in one and therefore has the right to make
decrees about such matters. Gregory writes back regretting that Leo does not yet see
the error of his ways. As for the former general Councils, they did not pretend to
discuss every point of the faith; it was unnecessary in those days to defend what no
one attacked. The title <Emperor and Priest> had been conceded as a compliment to
some sovereigns because of their zeal in defending the very faith that Leo now
attacked. The pope declares himself determined to withstand the emperor's tyranny at
any cost, though he has no defence but to pray that Christ will send a demon to torture
the emperor's body that his soul be saved, according to 1 Corinthians 5:5.
Meanwhile the persecution raged in the East. Monasteries were destroyed, monks put
to death, tortured, or banished. The Iconoclasts began to apply their principle to relics
also, to break open shrines and burn the bodies of saints buried in churches. Some of
them rejected all intercession of saints. These and other points (destruction of relics
and rejection of prayers to saints), though not necessarily involved in the original
programme are from this time generally (not quite always) added to Iconoclasm.
Meanwhile, St. John Damascene (d. 754). safe from the emperor's anger under the rule
of the Khalifa was writing at the monastery of St Saba his famous apologies "against
those who destroy the holy icons". In the West, at Rome, Ravenna, and Naples, the
people rose against the emperor's law. This anti-imperial movement is one of the
factors of the breach between Italy and the old empire, the independence of the
papacy, and the beginning of the Papal States. Gregory II already refused to send
taxes to Constantinople and himself appointed the imperial <dux> in the <Ducatos
Romanus>. From this time the pope becomes practically sovereign of the <Ducatus>.
The emperor's anger against image-worshippers was strengthened by a revolt that
broke out about this time in Hellas, ostensibly in favour of the icons. A certain Cosmas
was set up as emperor by the rebels. The insurrection was soon crushed (727), and
Cosmas was beheaded. After this a new and severer edict against images was
published (730), and the fury of the persecution was redoubled.
Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on
the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent
a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople. But George when
he arrived, was afraid to present them, and came back without having accomplished
his mission. He was sent a second time on the same errand, but was arrested and
imprisoned in Sicily by the imperial governor. The emperor now proceeded with his
policy of enlarging and strengthening his own patriarchate at Constantinople. He
conceived the idea of making it as great as all the empire over which he still actually
ruled. Isauria, Leo's birthplace, was taken from Antioch by an imperial edict and
added to the Byzantine patriarchate, increasing it by the Metropolis, Seleucia, and
about twenty other sees. Leo further pretended to withdraw Illyricum from the Roman
patriarchate and to add it to that of Constantinople, and confiscated all the property of
the Roman See on which he could lay his hands, in Sicily and Southern Italy. This
naturally increased the enmity between Eastern and Western Christendom. In 731
Gregory III held a synod of ninety-three bishops at St. Peter's in which all persons who
broke, defiled, or took images of Christ, of His Mother, the Apostles or other saints
were declared excommunicate. Another legate, Constantine, was sent with a copy of
the decree and of its application to the emperor, but was again arrested and
imprisoned in Sicily. Leo then sent a fleet to Italy to punish the pope; but it was
wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the
empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while the
Moslems continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.
Leo III died in June, 741, in the midst of these troubles, without having changed
policy. His work was carried on by his son Constantine V (Copronymus, 741-775),
who became an even greater persecutor of image-worshippers than had been his
father. As soon as Leo III was dead, Artabasdus (who had married Leo's daughter)
seized the opportunity and took advantage of the unpopularity of the Iconoclast
Government to raise a rebellion. Declaring himself the protector of the holy icons he
took possession of the capital, had himself crowned emperor by the pliant patriarch
Anastasius and immediately restored the images. Anastasius, who had been intruded
in the place of Germanus as the Iconoclast candidate, now veered round in the usual
Byzantine way, helped the restoration of the images and excommunicated Constantine
V as a heretic and denier of Christ. But Constantine marched on the city, took it,
blinded Artabasdus and began a furious revenge on all rebels and image-worshippers
(743). His treatment of Anastasius is a typical example of the way these later emperors
behaved towards the patriarchs through whom they tried to govern the Church.
Anastasius was flogged in public, blinded, driven shamefully through the streets,
made to return to his Iconoclasm and finally reinstated as patriarch. The wretched
man lived on till 754. The pictures restored by Artabasdus were again removed. In
754 Constantine, taking up his father's original idea summoned a great synod at
Constantinople that was to count as the Seventh General Council. About 340 bishops
attended; as the See of Constantinople was vacant by the death of Anastasius,
Theodosius of Ephesus and Pastilias of Perge presided. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem refused to send legates, since it was clear that the bishops were
summoned merely to carry out the emperor's commands. The event showed that the
patriarchs had judged rightly. The bishops at the synod servilely agreed to all
Constantine's demands. They decreed that images of Christ are either Monophysite or
Nestorian, for -- since it is impossible to represent His Divinity -- they either confound
or divorce His two natures. The only lawful representation of Christ is the Holy
Eucharist. Images of saints are equally to be abhorred; it is blasphemous to represent
by dead wood or stone those who live with God. All images are an invention of the
pagans -- are in fact idols, as shown by Ex xx, 4, 5; Deut. v, 8; John iv, 24; Rom. i, 23-25.
Certain texts of the Fathers are also quoted in support of Iconoclasm. Image-
worshippers are idolaters, adorers of wood and stone; the Emperors Leo and
Constantine are lights of the Orthodox faith, our saviours from idolatry. A special
curse is pronounced against three chief defenders of images -- Germanus, the former
Patriarch of Constantinople, John Damascene, and a monk, George of Cyprus. The
synod declares that "the Trinity has destroyed these three" ("Acts of the Iconoclast
Synod of 754" in Mansi XIII, 205 sq.).
The bishops finally elected a successor to the vacant see of Constantinople,
Constantine, bishop of Sylaeum (Constantine II, 754-66), who was of course a creature
of the Government, prepared to carry on its campaign. The decrees were published in
the Forum on 27 August, 754. After this the destruction of pictures went on with
renewed zeal. All the bishops of the empire were required to sign the Acts of the
synod and to swear to do away with icons in their dioceses. The Paulicians were now
treated well, while image-worshippers and monks were fiercely persecuted. Instead of
paintings of saints the churches were decorated with pictures of flowers, fruit, and
birds, so that the people said that they looked like grocery stores and bird shops. A
monk Peter was scourged to death on 7 June, 761; the Abbot of Monagria, John, who
refused to trample on an icon, was tied up in a sack and thrown into the sea on 7 June,
761; in 767 Andrew, a Cretan monk, was flogged and lacerated till he died (see the
Acta SS., 8 Oct.; Roman Martyrology for 17 Oct.); in November of the same year a
great number of monks were tortured to death in various ways (Martyrology, 28
Nov.). The emperor tried to abolish monasticism (as the centre of the defence of
images); monasteries were turned into barracks; the monastic habit was forbidden;
the patriarch Constantine II was made to swear in the ambo of his church that although
formerly a monk, he had now joined the secular clergy. Relics were dug up and
thrown into the sea, the invocation of saints forbidden. In 766 the emperor fell foul of
his patriarch, had him scourged and beheaded and replaced by Nicetas I (766-80), who
was, naturally also an obedient servant of the Iconoclast Government. Meanwhile the
countries which the emperors power did not reach kept the old custom and broke
communion with the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bishops. Cosmas
of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of
the holy icons in communion with Rome. The Emperor Constantine V died in 775. His
son Leo IV (775-80), although he did not repeal the Iconoclast law was much milder in
enforcing them. He allowed the exiled monks to come back, tolerated at least the
intercession of saints and tried to reconcile all parties. When the patriarch Nicetas I
died in 780 he was succeeded by Paul IV (780-84), a Cypriote monk who carried on a
half-hearted Iconoclast policy only through fear of the Government. But Leo IV's wife
Irene was a steadfast image-worshipper. Even during her husband's life she concealed
ho}y icons in her rooms. At the end of his reign Leo had a burst of fiercer Iconoclasm.
He punished the courtiers who had replaced images in their apartments and was about
to banish the empress when he died 8 September, 780. At once a complete reaction set
in.
II. THE SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL (NICEA II, 787)
The Empress Irene was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-97), who was nine years
old when his father died. She immediately set about undoing the work of the
Iconoclast emperors. Pictures and relics were restored to the churches; monasteries
were reopened. Fear of the army, now fanatically Iconoclast, kept her for a time from
repealing the laws; but she only waited for an opportunity to do so and to restore the
broken communion with Rome and the other patriarchates. The Patriarch of
Constantinople, Paul IV, resigned and retired to a monastery, giving openly as his
reason repentance for his former concessions to the Iconoclast Government. He was
succeeded by a pronounced image-worshipper, Tarasius. Tarasius and the empress
now opened negotiations with Rome. They sent an embassy to Pope Adrian I (772-95)
acknowledging the primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to send
legates to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 754. The
pope answered by two letters, one for the empress and one for the patriarch. In these
he repeats the arguments fo r the worship of images agrees to the proposed council,
insists on the authority of the Holy See, and demands the restitution of the property
confiscated by Leo III. He blames the sudden elevation of Tarasius (who from being a
layman had suddenly become patriarch), and rejects his title of <Ecumenical
Patriarch>, but he praises his orthodoxy and zeal for the holy images. Finally, he
commits all these matters to the judgment of his legates. These legates were an
archpriest Peter and the abbot Peter of St. Saba near Rome. The other three patriarchs
were unable to answer, they did not even receive Tarasius's letters, because of the
disturbance at that time in the Moslem state. But two m onks, Thomas, abbot of an
Egyptian monastery and John Syncellus of Antioch, appeared with letters from their
communities explaining the state of things and showing that the patriarchs had always
remained faithful to the images. These two seem to have acted in some sort as legates
for Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
Tarasius opened the synod in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. in August,
786; but it was at once dispersed by the Iconoclast soldiers. The empress disbanded
those troops and replaced them by others; it was arranged that the synod should meet
at Nicaea in Bithynia, the place of the first general council. The bishops met here in the
summer of 787, about 300 in number. The council lasted from 24 September to 23
October. The Roman legates were present; they signed the Acts first and always had
the first place in the list of members, but Tarasius conducted the proceeding,
apparently because the legates could not speak Greek. In the first three sessions
Tarasius gave an account of the events that had led up to the Council, the papal and
other letters were read out, and many repentant Iconoclast bishops were reconciled.
The fathers accepted the pope's letters as true formulas of the Catholic Faith. Tarasius,
when he read the letters, left out the passages about the restitution of the confiscated
papal properties, the reproaches against his own sudden elevation and use of the title
<Ecumenical Patriarch>, and modified (but not essentially) the assertions of the
primacy. The fourth session established the reasons for which the use of holy images
is lawful, quoting from the Old Testament passages about images in the temple (Ex.,
xxv, 18-22; Num., vii, 89; Ezech., xli, 18-19; Hebr., ix, 5), and also citing a great
number of the Fathers. Euthymius of Sardes at the end of the session read a profession
of faith in this sense. In the fifth session Tarasius explained that Iconoclasm came from
Jews, Saracens, and heretics; some Iconoclast misquotations were exposed, their
books burnt, and an icon set up in the hall in the midst of the fathers. The sixth session
was occupied with the Iconoclast synod of 754; its claim to be a general council was
denied, because neither the pope nor the three other patriarchs had a share in it. The
decree of that synod (see above) was refuted clause by clause. The seventh session
drew up the symbol (<horos>) of the council, in which, after repeating the Nicene
Creed and renewing the condemnation of all manner of former heretics, from Arians to
Monothelites, the fathers make their definition. Images are to receive veneration
(<proskynesis>), not adoration (<latreia>); the honour paid to them is only relative
(<schetike>), for the sake of their prototype (for the text of this, the essential definition
of the council, see IMAGES, VENERATION OF). Anathemas are pronounced against
the Iconoclast leaders; Germanus, John Damascene, and George of Cyprus are praised.
In opposition to the formula of the Iconoclast synod the fathers declare: "The Trinity
has made these three glorious" (<he Trias tous treis edoxasen>). A deputation was
sent to the empress with the Acts of the synod; a letter the clergy of Constantinople
acquainted them with its decision. Twenty-two canons were drawn up, of which these
are the chief: <ul> canons 1 and 2 confirm the canons of all former general councils;
canon 3 forbids the appointment of ecclesiastical persons by the State; only bishops
may elect other bishops;
canons 4 and 5 are against simony;
canon 6 insists on yearly provincial synods;
canon 7 forbids bishops, under penalty of deposition, to consecrate churches without
relics;
canon 10 forbids priests to change their parishes without their bishops consent;
canon 13 commands all desecrated monasteries to be restored;
canons 18-20 regulate abuses in monasteries.
An eighth and last session was held on 23 October at Constantinople in the presence of
Irene and her son. After a discourse by Tarasius the Acts were read out and signed by
all, including the empress and the emperor. The synod was closed with the usual
Polychronia or formal acclamation, and Epiphanius, a deacon of Catania in Sicily,
preached a sermon to the assembled fathers.
Tarasius sent to Pope Adrian an account of all that had happened, and Adrian
approved the Acts (letter to Charles the Great) and had them translated into Latin. But
the question of the property of the Holy See in Southern Italy and the friendship of the
pope towards the Franks still caused had feeling between East and West; moreover an
Iconoclast party still existed at Constantinople, especially in the army.
III. THE SECOND ICONOCLAST PERSECUTION
Twenty-seven years after the Synod of Nicaea, Iconoclasm broke out again. Again the
holy pictures were destroyed, and their defenders fiercely persecuted. For twenty-
eight years the former story was repeated with wonderful exactness. The places of Leo
III, Constantine V, and Leo IV are taken by a new line of Iconoclast emperors -- Leo V,
Michael II, Theophilus. Pope Paschal I acts just as did Gregory II, the faithful Patriarch
Nicephorus stands for Germanus I, St. John Damascene lives again in St. Theodore the
Studite. Again one synod rejects icons, and another, following it, defends them. Again
an empress, regent for her young son, puts an end to the storm and restores the old
custom -- this time finally.
The origin of this second outbreak is not far to seek. There had remained, especially
in the army, a considerable Iconoclast party. Constantine V, their hero had been a
valiant and successful general against the Moslems, Michael I (811-13), who kept the
Faith of the Second Council of Nicaea, was singularly unfortunate in his attempt to
defend the empire. The Iconoclasts looked back regretfully to the glorious campaigns
of his predecessor, they evolved the amazing conception of Constantine as a saint, they
went in pilgrimage to his grave and cried out to him: "Arise come back and save the
perishing empire". When Michael I, in June, 813, was utterly defeated by the Bulgars
and fled to his capital, the soldiers forced him to resign his crown and set up one of the
generals Leo the Armenian (Leo V, 813-20) in his place. An officer (Theodotus
Cassiteras) and a monk (the Abbot John Grammaticus) persuaded the new emperor
that all the misfortunes of the empire were a judgment of God on the idolatry of
image-worship. Leo, once persuaded, used all his power to put down the icons, and so
all the trouble began again.
In 814 the Iconoclasts assembled at the palace and prepared an elaborate attack against
images, repeating almost exactly the arguments of the synod of 754. The Patriarch of
Constantinople was Nicephorus I (806-15), who became one of the chief defenders of
images in this second persecution. The emperor invited him to a discussion of the
question with the Iconoclasts; he refused since it had been already settled by the
Seventh General Council. The work of demolishing images began again. The picture
of Christ restored by Irene over the iron door of the palace, was again removed. In 815
the patriarch was summoned to the emperor's presence. He came surrounded by
bishops, abbots, and monks, and held a long discussion with Leo and his Iconoclast
followers. Inn he same year the emperor summoned a synod of bishops, who, obeying
his orders, deposed the patriarch and elected Theodotus Cassiteras (Theodotus I, 815-
21) to succeed him. Nicephorus was banished across the Bosporus. Till his death in
829, he defended the cause of the images by controversial writings (the "Lesser
Apology", "Antirrhetikoi", "Greater Apology", etc. in P. G., C, 201-850; Pitra, "Spicileg.
Solesm.", I, 302-503; IV, 233, 380), wrote a history of his own time (<Historia
syntomos>, P. G., C, 876-994) and a general chronography from Adam
(<chronographikon syntomon>, in P. G., C, 995-1060). Among the monks who
accompanied Nicephorus to the emperor's presence in 815 was Theodore, Abbot of the
Studium monastery at Constantinople (d. 826). Throughout this second Iconoclast
persecution St . Theodore (<Theodorus Studita>) was the leader of the faithful monks,
the chief defender of the icons. He comforted and encouraged Nicephorus in his
resistance to the emperor, was three times banished by the Government, wrote a great
number of treatises controversial letters, and apologies in various forms for the images.
His chief point is that Iconoclasts are Christological heretics, since they deny an
essential element of Christ's human nature, namely, that it can be represented
graphically. This amounts to a denial of its reality and material quality, whereby
Iconoclasts revive the old Monophysite heresy. Ehrhard judges St. Theodore to be
"perhaps the most ingenious [<der scharfsinnigste>] of the defenders of the cult of
images" (in Krumbacher's "Byz. Litt.", p. 150). In any case his position can be rivalled
only by that of St. John Damascene. (See his work in P. G., XCIX; for an account of
them see Krumbacher, op. cit., 147-151, 712-715; his life by a contemporary monk, P.
G., XCIX, 9 sq.) His feast is on 11 Nov. in the Byzantine Rite, 12 Nov. in the Roman
Martyrology.
The first thing the new patriarch Theodotus did was to hold a synod which
condemned the council of 787 (the Second Nicene) and declared its adherence to that
of 754. Bishops, abbots, clergy, and even officers of the Government who would not
accept its decree were deposed, banished, tortured. Theodore of Studium refused
communion with the Iconoclast patriarch, and went into exile. A number of persons of
all ranks were put to death at this time, and his references; pictures of all kinds were
destroyed everywhere. Theodore appealed to the pope (Paschal I, 817-824) in the
name of the persecuted Eastern image-worshippers. At the same time Theodotus the
Iconoclast patriarch, sent legates to Rome, who were, however not admitted by the
pope, since Theodotus was a schismatical intruder in the see of which Nicephorus was
still lawful bishop. But Paschal received the monks sent by Theodoret and gave up the
monastery of St. Praxedes to them and others who had fled from the persecution in the
East. In 818 the pope sent legates to the emperor with a letter defending the icons and
once more refuting the Iconoclast accusation of idolatry. In this letter he insists chiefly
on our need of exterior signs for invisible things: sacraments, words, the sign of the
Cross. and all tangible signs of this kind; how, then, can people who a admit these
reject images? (The fragment of this letter that has been preserved is published in
Pitra, "Spicileg. Solesm.". II, p. xi sq.). The letter did not have any effect on the
emperor; but it is from this time especially that the Catholics in the East turn with
more loyalty than ever to Rome as their leader, their last refuge in the persecution. The
well-known texts of St. Theodore in which he defends the primacy in the strongest
possible language -- e. g., "Whatever novelty is brought into the Church by those who
wander from the truth must certainly be referred to Peter or to his successor . . . . Save
us, chief pastor of the Church under heaven" (Ep. i, 33, P. G.., XCIX, 1018); "Arrange
that a decision be received from old Rome as the custom has been handed down from
the beginning by the tradition of our fathers" (Ep. ii, 36; ibid., 1331 --were written
during this persecution).
The protestations of loyalty to old Rome made by the Orthodox and Catholic
Christians of the Byzantine Church at the time are her last witness immediately before
the Great Schism. There were then two separate parties in the East having no
communion with each other: the Iconoclast persecutors under the emperor with their
anti-patriarch Theodotus, and the Catholics led by Theodore the Studite
acknowledging the lawful patriarch Nicephorus and above him the distant Latin
bishop who was to them the "chief pastor of the Church under heaven". On Christmas
Day, 820, Leo V ended his tyrannical reign by being murdered in a palace revolution
that set up one of his generals, Michael II (the Stammerer, 820-29) as emperor. Michael
was also an Iconoclast and continued his predecessors policy, though at first he was
anxious not to persecute but to conciliate every one. But he changed nothing of the
Iconoclast law and when Theodotus the anti-patriarch died (821) he refused to restore
Nicephorus and set up another usurper, Antony, formerly Bishop of Sylaeum (Antony
I, 321-32). In 822 a certain general of Slav race, Thomas, set up a dangerous revolution
with the help of the Arabs. It does not seem that this revolution had anything to do
with the question of images. Thomas represented rather the party of the murdered
emperor, Leo V. But after it was put down, in 824, Michael became much more severe
towards the image-worshippers. A great number of monks fled to the West, and
Michael wrote a famous letter full of bitter accusations of their idolatry to his rival
Louis the Pious (814-20) to persuade him to hand over these exiles to Byzantine justice
(in Manse, XIV, 417-22). Other Catholics who had not escaped were imprisoned and
tortured, among whom were Methodius of Syracuse and Euthymius, Metropolitan of
Sardes. The deaths of St. Theodore the Studite (11 Nov., 826) and of the lawful
patriarch Nicephorus (2 June, 828) were a great loss to the orthodox at this time.
Michael's son and successor, Theophilus, (829-42), continued the persecution still more
fiercely. A monk, Lazarus, was scourged till he nearly died; another monk,
Methodius, was shut up in prison with common ruffians for seven years; Michael,
Syncellus of Jerusalem, and Joseph, a famous writer of hymns, were tortured. The two
brothers Theophanes and Theodore were scourged with 200 strokes and branded in
the face with hot irons as idolaters (Martyrol. Rom., 27 December). By this time all
images had been removed from the churches and public places, the prisons were filled
with their defenders, the faithful Catholics were reduced to a sect hiding about the
empire, and a crowd of exiles in the West. But the emperor's wife Theodora and her
mother Theoctista were faithful to the Second Nicene Synod and waited for better
times.
Those times came as soon as Theophilus died (20 January, 842). He left a son, three
years old, Michael III (the Drunkard, who lived to cause the Great Schism of Photius,
842-67), and the regent was Michael's mother, Theodora. Like Irene at the end of the
first persecution, Theodora at once began to change the situation. She opened the
prisons, let out the confessors who were shut up for defending images, and recalled
the exiles. For a time she hesitated to revoke the Iconoclast laws, but soon she made
up her mind and everything was brought back to the conditions of the Second Council
of Nicea. The patriarch John VII (832-42), who had succeeded Antony I, was given his
choice between restoring the images and retiring. He preferred to retire. and his place
was taken by Methodius, the monk who had already suffered years of imprisonment
for the cause of the icons (Methodius I, 842- 46). In the same year (842) a synod at
Constantinople approved of John VII 's deposition, renewed the decree of the Second
Council of Nicaea and excommunicated Iconoclasts. This is the last act in the story of
this heresy. On the first Sunday of Lent (19 February, 842) the icons were brought back
to the churches in solemn procession. That day (the first Sunday of Lent) was made
into a perpetual memory of the triumph of orthodoxy at the end of the long Iconoclast
persecution. It is the "Feast of Orthodoxy" of the Byzantine Church still kept very
solemnly by both Uniats and Orthodox. Twenty years later the Great Schism began.
So large has this, the last of the old heresies, loomed in the eyes of Eastern Christians
that the Byzantine Church looks upon it as a kind of type of heresy in general the
Feast of Orthodoxy, founded to commemorate the defeat of Iconoclasm has become a
feast of the triumph of the Church over all heresies. It is in this sense that it is now
kept. The great <Synodikon> read out on that day anathematizes all heretics (in
Russia rebels and nihilists also) among whom the Iconoclasts appear only as one
fraction of a large and varied class. After the restoration of the icons in 842, there still
remained an Iconoclast party in the East, but it never again got the ear of an emperor,
and so gradually dwindled and eventually died out.
IV. ICONOCLASM IN THE WEST
There was an echo of these troubles in the Frankish kingdom, chiefly through
misunderstanding of the meaning of Greek expressions used by the Second Council of
Nicaea. As early as 767 Constantine V had tried to secure the sympathy of the
Frankish bishops for his campaign against images this time without success. A synod
at Gentilly sent a declaration to Pope Paul I (757-67) which quite satisfied him. The
trouble began when Adrian I (772-95) sent a very imperfect translation of the Acts of
the Second Council of Nicaea to Charles the Great (Charlemagne, 768-8l4). The errors
of this Latin version are obvious from the quotations made from it by the Frankish
bishops. For instance in the third session of the council Constantine, Bishop of
Constantia, in Cyprus had said: "I receive the holy and venerable images; and I give
worship which is according to real adoration [<kata latreian>] only to the
consubstantial and life-giving Trinity" (Mansi, XII, 1148). This phrase had been
translated: "I receive the holy and venerable images with the adoration which I give to
the consubstantial and life- giving Trinity" ("Libri Carolini", III, 17, P. L. XCVIII, 1148).
There were other reasons why these Frankish bishops objected to the decrees of the
council. Their people had only just been converted from idolatry, and so they were
suspicious of anything that might seem like a return to it. Germans knew nothing of
Byzantine elaborate forms of respect; prostrations, kisses, incense and such signs that
Greeks used constantly towards their emperors, even towards the emperor's statues,
and therefore applied naturally to holy pictures, seemed to these Franks servile,
degrading, even idolatrous. The Franks say the word <proskynesis> (which meant
worship only in the sense of reverence and veneration) translated <adoratio> and
understood it as meaning the homage due only to God. Lastly, there was their
indignation against the political conduct of the Empress Irene, the state of friction that
led to the coronation of Charlemagne at Rome and the establishment of a rival empire.
Suspicion of everything done by the Greeks, dislike of all their customs, led to the
rejection of the council did not mean that the Frankish bishops and Charlemagne sided
with the Iconoclasts. If they refused to accept the Nicene Council they equally rejected
the Iconoclast synod of 754. They had holy images and kept them: but they thought
that the Fathers of Nicaea had gone too far, had encouraged what would be real
idolatry.
The answer to the decrees of the second Council of Nicaea sent in this faulty
translation by Adrian I was a refutation in eighty-five chapters brought to the pope in
790 by a Frankish abbot, Angilbert. This refutation, later expanded and fortified with
quotations from the fathers and other arguments became the famous "Libri Carolini" or
"Capitulare de Imaginibus" in which Charlemagne is represented as declaring his
convictions (first published at Paris by Jean du Tillet, Bishop of St-Brieux, 1549, in P. L.
XCVIII, 990-1248). The authenticity of this work, some time disputed, is now
established. In it the bishops reject the synods both of 787 and of 754. They admit that
pictures of saints should be kept as ornaments in churches and as well as relics and the
saints themselves should receive a certain proper veneration (<opportuna veneratio>);
but they declare that God only can receive adoration (meaning <adoratio,
proskynesis>); pictures are in themselves indifferent, have no necessary connexion
with the Faith, are in any case inferior to relics, the Cross, and the Bible. The pope, in
794, answered these eighty-five chapters by a long exposition and defence of the cult of
images (Hadriani ep. ad Carol. Reg." P. L., XCVIII, 1247-92), in which he mentions,
among other points, that twelve Frankish bishops were present at, and had agreed to,
the Roman synod of 731. Before the letter arrived the Frankish bishop; held the synod
of Frankfort (794) in the presence of two papal legates, Theophylactus and Stephen,
who do not seem to have done anything to clear up the misunderstanding. This Synod
formally condemns the Second Council of Nicea, showing, at the same time, that it
altogether misunderstands the decision of Nicaea. The essence of the decree at
Frankfort is its second canon: "A question has been brought forward concerning the
next synod of the Greeks which they held at Constantinople [the Franks do not even
know where the synod they condemn was held] in connexion with the adoration of
images, in which synod it was written that those who do not give service and
adoration to pictures of saints just as much as to the Divine Trinity are to be
anathematized. But our most holy Fathers whose names are above, refusing this
adoration and serve despise and condemn that synod." Charlemagne sent these Acts
to Rome and demanded the condemnation of Irene and Constantine VI. The pope of
course refused to do so, and matters remained for a time as they were, the second
Council of Nicaea being rejected in the Frankish Kingdom.
During the second iconoclastic persecution, in 824, the Emperor Michael II wrote to
Louis the Pious the letter which, besides demanding that the Byzantine monks who
had escaped to the West should be handed over to him, entered into the whole
question of image-worship at length and contained vehement accusations against its
defenders. Part of the letter is quoted in Leclercq-Hefele, "Histoire des conciles", III, 1,
p. 612. Louis begged the pope (Eugene II, 824-27) to receive a document to be drawn
up by the Frankish bishops in which texts of the Fathers bearing on the subject should
be collected. Eugene agreed, and the bishops met in 825 at Paris. This meeting
followed the example of the Synod of Frankfort exactly. The bishops try to propose a
middle way, but decidedly lean toward the Iconoclasts. They produce some texts
against these, many more against image-worship. Pictures may be tolerated only as
mere ornaments. Adrian I is blamed for his assent to Nicaea II. Two bishops, Jeremias
of Sens and Jonas of xxxx, are sent to Rome with this document; they are especially
warned to treat the pope with every possible reverence and humility, and to efface any
passages that might offend him. Louis, also, wrote to the pope, protesting that he only
proposed to help him with some useful quotations in his discussions with the
Byzantine Court; that he had no idea of dictating to the Holy See (Hefele, 1. c.).
Nothing is known of Eugene's answer or of the further developments of this incident.
The correspondence about images continued for some time between the Holy See and
the Frankish Church; gradually the decrees of the second Council of Nicaea were
accepted throughout the Western Empire. Pope John VIII (872-82) sent a better
translation of the Acts of the council which helped very much to remove
misunderstanding.
There are a few more isolated cases of Iconoclasm in the West. Claudius, Bishop of
Turin (d. 840), in 824 destroyed all pictures and crosses in his diocese forbade
pilgrimages, recourse to intercession of saints, veneration of relics, even lighted
candles, except for practical purposes. Many bishops of the empire and a Frankish
abbot, Theodomir, wrote against him (P. L. CV); he was condemned by a local synod.
Agobard of Lyons at the same time thought that no external signs of reverence should
be paid to images; but he had few followers. Walafrid Strabo ("De. eccles. rerum
exordiis et incrementis" in P. L., CXIV, 916-66) and Hincmar of Reims ("Opusc. c.
Hincmarum Lauden.", xx, in P. L. CXXVI) defended the Catholic practice and
contributed to put an end to the exceptional principles of Frankish bishops. But as late
as the eleventh century Bishop Jocelin of Bordeaux still had Iconoclast ideas for which
he was severely reprimanded by Pope Alexander II.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (
[email protected]). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Ftp: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
