Who “declared the Orthodox faith of the whole people and exalted your holy catholic and apostolic spiritual mother, the Church of Rome, and, together with other Orthodox emperors, revered her as the head of all Churches.” Further, the pope discusses the primacy of the Roman Church, identifying Orthodoxy with her teaching; as a justification for the special significance of the department of ap. Peter, to whom “great veneration should be shown by all believers in the world,” the pope points out that this “prince of the apostles ... the Lord God has given power to bind and loose sins in heaven and on earth ... and handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (cf. Mt 16 18-19; the Greek version of the Epistle adds the Apostle Paul everywhere along with the Apostle Peter). Having proved the antiquity of icon veneration with a lengthy quotation from the Life of Pope Sylvester, the pope, following St. Gregory I (the Great) the Dialogist asserts the need for icons for the instruction of the illiterate and pagans. At the same time, he cites from the Old Testament examples of symbolic images created by man not according to his own understanding, but according to Divine inspiration (Ark of the Covenant, decorated with golden cherubs; a copper snake created by Moses - Ex 25; 37; 21). Citing places from patristic writings (Blessed Augustine, Saints Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose of Mediolanum, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Blessed Jerome) and a large fragment from the words of St. Stephen of Bostra "On the holy icons", the pope "begs on his knees" the emperor and empress to restore the holy icons, "so that our holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church will receive you in her arms."
In the final part of the epistle (known only in the Latin original and most likely not read to the Council), Pope Adrian sets the conditions under which he agrees to send his representatives: the curse of the iconoclastic false council; written guarantees (pia sacra) from the emperor and empress, patriarch and synclite of the impartiality and safe return of papal envoys, even if they disagree with the decisions of the Council; the return of confiscated possessions to the Roman Church; restoration of the jurisdiction of the pope over the church district, torn away under the iconoclasts. Declaring that "the chair of St. Peter on earth enjoys primacy and was established in order to be the head of all the Churches of God”, and that the title “universal Church” can only refer to it, the pope expresses bewilderment at the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople “universalis patriarcha” and asks that henceforth this title was never used. Further, the pope writes that he was delighted with the confession of Patriarch Tarasius, but was indignant that a secular person (apocaligus, literally, who took off his military boots) was elevated to the highest church degree, “for such people are completely unfamiliar with the duty of teaching.” Nevertheless, Pope Adrian agrees with his election, since Tarasius participates in the restoration of holy icons. In the end, promising the Emperor and Empress the patronage of St. Peter, the pope sets them an example of Charlemagne, who conquered "all the barbarian nations lying in the West", and returned to the See of Rome the "legacy of St. Peter" (patrimonia Petri).
In a response message to Patriarch Tarasius himself (undated), Pope Adrian calls on him to contribute in every possible way to the restoration of icon veneration and delicately warns that if this is not done, he "will not dare to recognize his consecration." In the text of this message, the question of the title "ecumenical" is not raised, although there is also a phrase that the chair of St. Peter "is the head of all the Churches of God" (the Greek version exactly corresponds in key points to the Latin original taken by Anastasius the Librarian in the papal archives).
The reaction of the Eastern patriarchs
Embassy to east. Patriarchs (Politian of Alexandria, Theodoret of Antioch and Elijah II (III) of Jerusalem), whose Churches were located on the territory of the Arab Caliphate, met with significant difficulties. Despite the truce concluded after the devastating campaign of Bud. Caliph Harun al-Rashid in the city, relations between the empire and the Arabs remained tense. Having learned about the purpose of the embassy, the Orthodox of the East, accustomed since the time of St. John of Damascus to defend icon veneration from the attacks of the Byzantines, did not immediately believe in a sharp turn in the church policy of Constantinople. It was announced to the envoys that all sorts of officers. contacts with the patriarchs are excluded, because due to the suspiciousness of Muslims, they can lead to dangerous consequences for the Church. After long hesitation, the clergy agreed to send two hermits to the Cathedral, John, ex. Syncellus of the Patriarch of Antioch, and Thomas, hegumen of the monastery of St. Arseny in Egypt (later Metropolitan of Thessaloniki). They delivered a reply message to the emperor and empress and patriarch, composed on behalf of the "bishops, priests and monks of the East" (read to the Council in Act 3). It expresses joy over the Orthodox. confessions of Patriarch Tarasius and praise to the imp. authorities, “which is the strength and stronghold of the priesthood” (in this regard, the beginning of the preamble to the 6th novel of Justinian is quoted), for the restoration of the unity of faith. The text more than once speaks of the plight of Christians under the yoke of the "enemies of the cross" and reports that correspondence with the patriarchs is impossible; sending the hermits John and Thomas as representatives of all the Orthodox East, the authors of the message urge not to attach importance to the forced absence at the Council of the Eastern. patriarchs and bishops, especially if representatives of the pope arrive (the VI Ecumenical Council is mentioned as a precedent). As a common opinion of the Orthodox of the East, the text of the conciliar message Theodore I, the former patriarch of Jerusalem (d. after), sent by him to the patriarchs Cosmas of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch, is attached to the letter. It sets out in detail the doctrine of the 6 Ecumenical Councils and, with proper theological justification, confesses the veneration of holy relics and venerable icons. A special role at the forthcoming Council was assigned to the South Italian clergy. Regions South. Italy and Sicily, cut off from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope under the iconoclast emperors, served as a place of refuge for numerous icon worshipers. The Sicilian hierarchs, subordinate to Constantinople, acted as mediators in settling relations with the pope: imp. the message to Pope Adrian was delivered by Constantine, ep. Leontinsky; patriarchal - delegation with the participation of Theodore, ep. Katansky. In conciliar acts, bishops from Yuzh. Italy, as well as deac. Epiphanius of Catania, representative of Thomas, Met. Sardinian, are listed among the metropolitans and archbishops, higher than the bishops of other regions.
The representation of the regions at the Council reflects the political realities of Byzantium con. VIII century: most of the bishops came from the west. regions of M. Asia; from the east ruined by the Arabs. provinces arrived only a few. people, and the area of continental Greece, occupied by glory. tribes and only recently conquered by Stavrakii (783–784), were not represented at all. Crete in the first 3 acts was represented only by Met. Elijah.
Opening of the Council in Constantinople and its disruption by the military
Both Peters asked the same question to the entire Council, to which the unanimous answer followed: “We allow and accept.” The representative of the East, John, thanked God for the unanimity of "the most holy patriarchs and ecumenical shepherds" Adrian and Tarasius and for the concern for the Church shown by the imp. Irina. Following this, all the participants in the Council (including Metropolitans Basil of Ancyra and Theodore of Mir, Archbishop Theodosius of Amoria) in turn expressed their agreement with the teaching contained in the letters of the pope, uttering basically the following formula: , and I accept sacred and honest icons, according to ancient tradition; I anathematize those who think otherwise.” At the request of the Council and Patriarch St. Tarasius, representatives of monasticism were also supposed to join the confession of icon veneration.
3rd act.
28 Sept. (in Lat. transl. Sept. 29). Gregory of Neocaesarea, Hypatius of Nicaea and other repentant bishops appeared. Gregory of Neocaesarea read out repentance and confession, similar to those read in Act 1 by Basil of Ancyra. But St. Tarasius announced that he was under suspicion of beating icon worshipers during the persecution, for which he was to be defrocked. The council offered to collect evidence and investigate the case, but Gregory vehemently denied allegations of violence or persecution.
Then the message of Patriarch St. Tarasia to the east. to the patriarchs and a reply message sent by the bishops of the East, with a copy of the conciliar message of Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem, attached to it. After reading them, the representatives of the pope expressed their satisfaction that Patriarch St. Tarasy, and east. Bishops agree in Orthodoxy. faith and teaching about the worship of honest icons with Pope Adrian, and anathematized those who think otherwise. Behind them is agreement with the confessions of Patriarch St. Metropolitans and archbishops, including those who had just been received into communion, uttered an anathema against dissidents, Tarasius and the "Eastern" ones. Finally, the entire Council, declaring full agreement with the messages of Pope Adrian, the confession of Patriarch St. Tarasia and the messages of the East. bishops, proclaimed the veneration of holy icons and anathema to the false council of 754. St. Tarasius thanked God for the unification of the Church.
4th act.
Oct 1 It became the longest. Restored Orthodoxy. the doctrine had to be consolidated among the people, for many years of iconoclasm, weaned from the veneration of icons. In this regard, at the suggestion of the Patriarch, the Council heard all those passages from the Holy. Scripture and St. fathers on whom the clergy could rely in preaching. In the course of reading texts from books borrowed from the patriarchal library or brought to the Council by individual bishops and abbots, the fathers and dignitaries commented and discussed what they had heard.
Texts were read from the Holy Scriptures about images in the Old Testament temple (Ex 25:1-22; Numbers 7:88-89; Eze 41:16-20; Heb 9:1-5). The antiquity of the custom of icon veneration was attested from the works of St. John Chrysostom (on the revered icon of St. Meletius), Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria (on the depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac), Gregory the Theologian (on the icon of King Solomon), Antipater of Bostra (on the statue of Christ erected by the healed bleeding ), Asterius of Amasia (about the picturesque depiction of the martyrdom of St. Euphemia), Basil the Great (on Blessed Varlaam).
The kissing of St. Maximus the Confessor of the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, along with the Gospel and the honest Cross, also read the rule of Trul. 82 (about the image on the icons of Christ instead of the old lamb); while St. Tarasy explained that the rules were adopted under imp. Justinians II are the same fathers who participated in the VI Ecumenical Council under his father, and "let no one doubt them."
A large passage on the worship of images was read from the 5th book. "Apology against the Jews" Leontius, ep. Naples of Cyprus. When reading the message of St. Nile to the eparch Olympiodor with recommendations on the painting of the temple, it turned out that it was read out at the iconoclastic false cathedral with cuts and corrections - this allowed many to be misled. It turned out that the bishops were not shown the books themselves, but were read extracts from some tablets (pittЈkia). Therefore, this time the fathers paid special attention to the fact that when reading, books were shown, and not separate notebooks, and that the most important texts coincided in different codes.
An important dogmatic value for the refutation of the accusation of icon worshipers in the "split" of Christ were excerpts about the identity of the worship of the image and the prototype from the works of Sts. Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch ("worship is the manifestation of reverence").
The final chord was the messages of the primates of the Roman and Constantinople thrones: a certain Pope Gregory to St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, approving his fight against heresy, and 3 epistles of St. Herman with a denunciation and refutation of iconoclastic plans: to John, Met. Sinadsky, to Constantine, ep. Nakoliysky, and to Thomas, Met. Claudiopolis (the last two are heresiarchs of iconoclasm).
The meeting ended with a theological conclusion. Patriarch St. Tarasius invited the participants to join "the teachings of the Holy Fathers, guardians of the Catholic Church." The council answered: “The teachings of the godly fathers corrected us; drawing from them, we are drunk with the truth; following them, we drove away the lie; taught by them, we kiss the holy icons. Believing in one God, glorified in the Trinity, we kiss honest icons. Whoever does not follow this will be anathema." Further anathematisms were pronounced:
- accusers of Christians - persecutors of icons;
- applying the sayings of Divine Scripture, directed against idols, to honest icons;
- not accepting with love holy and honest icons;
- calling sacred and honest icons idols;
- those who say that Christians resort to icons as gods;
- those who hold the same thoughts with dishonoring and dishonoring honest icons;
- those who say that someone other than Christ our God delivered Christians from idols;
- who dare to say that Christ. The church has ever received idols.
5th act.
Oct 4 Continued acquaintance with the works of the fathers in order to denounce the iconoclasts. After reading the 2nd catechumen of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (about the crushing of the cherubim by Nebuchadnezzar), the epistles of St. Simeon the Stylite the Younger to Justin II (demanding punishment for the Samaritans who abused icons), John of Thessaloniki’s “Words Against the Gentiles” and “Dialogue between a Jew and a Christian” it was recognized that rejecting icons are similar to Samaritans and Jews.
Particular attention was paid to the refutation of the arguments put forward against the veneration of icons. Apocryphal Travels of the Apostles, an excerpt from which (where Apostle John condemns Lycomedes for having installed an icon with his image in his bedroom) was read at a false cathedral, as follows from another passage, turned out to be contrary to the Gospels. To the question of Patricius Petrona, whether the participants in the false council had seen this book, Met. Gregory of Neocaesarea and Archbishop Theodosius of Amorius replied that they were only reading extracts on leaflets. The council anathematized this work as containing Manichaean ideas about the illusiveness of the Incarnation, forbade copying it and ordered it to be put on fire. In this regard, a quotation from the writings of St. Amphilochius of Iconium on books falsely inscribed by heretics.
Turning to the disapproving opinion about the icons of Eusebius of Caesarea, expressed in a letter to Constance, sister of imp. Constantine the Great and his wife Licinius, the Council heard an excerpt from the same author from the 8th book. to Euphration and denounced him in Arian views.
Further, excerpts from the church histories of Theodore the Reader and John the Diacrinomen and the Life of Savva the Sanctified were read; it followed from them that Philoxen of Hierapolis, who did not approve of the icon, was not even baptized as a bishop, and at the same time was an ardent opponent of the Council of Chalcedon. His associate Sevir of Antioch, as follows from the appeal of the Antiochian clergy to the Council of Constantinople, seized from the churches and appropriated the gold and silver doves dedicated to the Holy Spirit.
Then the Council proclaimed anathemas to the iconoclasts and praises to the emperor and empress and the defenders of icon veneration. Personally were anathematized: Theodosius of Ephesus, Met. Ephesian, Sisinius Pastilla, Met. Pergsky, Vasily Trikakkav, Met. Antioch of Pisidia, - the leaders of the iconoclastic false council; Anastasius, Constantine and Nikita, who occupied the See of Constantinople and condoned iconoclasm; John of Nicomedia and Constantine of Nakoli - herese leaders. Eternal memory was proclaimed to the defenders of icons condemned at the false council: St. Herman I, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus and George, archbishop. Kiprsky.
The council composed 2 appeals to the emperor and empress and the clergy of Constantinople. In the 1st, among other things, the identity of the concepts “kiss” and “worship” is affirmed, based on the etymology of the verb “kiss”.
8th act.
Oct 23 The emperor and empress further “considered it impossible not to be present at the Council” and a special letter addressed to Patriarch St. Tarasia invited the bishops to the capital. The “God-protected empress shining with happiness” Irina and her 16-year-old son Constantine VI met the participants of the Council in the Magnavra Palace, where the final meeting of the Council was held in the presence of dignitaries, military leaders and representatives of the people. After brief speeches by the Patriarch and the Emperor and Empress, the decision adopted by the Council was read aloud, again unanimously confirmed by all the bishops. Then a scroll with a definition presented to St. Tarasius, was sealed with the signatures of the imp. Irina and imp. Constantine VI and returned to the patriarch through the patrician Stavraky, which was met with laudatory acclamations.
At the direction of the emperor and empress, the patristic testimonies about icons (from the 4th act) were again read to the audience. The Council ended with universal thanksgiving praises to God. After that, the bishops, having received gifts from the emperor and empress, dispersed to the dioceses.
In the conclusion of the conciliar acts, 22 church canons are given, adopted by the Council.
Consequences of the Council.
The Council's decisions were largely in line with the wishes of Pope Hadrian. However, the demands of the See of Rome for the return of the church areas torn from its jurisdiction in Italy and the Balkans were actually ignored (the corresponding passage from the message of the pope, as well as his reproaches about the elevation of St. Tarasius to the patriarchate from the laity and his title, were removed from the Greek text of the acts and at the Council, probably, were not heard). Nevertheless, the conciliar acts were approved by his messengers and delivered to Rome, where they were placed in the papal office.
However, for a number of reasons, the Council was strongly opposed by King Charlemagne. In the context of aggravated relations with imp. Irina, the powerful monarch, took the ecclesiastical rapprochement between Rome and Constantinople extremely painfully. At his insistence, a document was drawn up in the city, known as the Libri Carolini (Charles Books); in it, the Council was declared the local Council of the "Greeks", and its decisions were declared null and void; The court theologians of King Charles rejected the justification for the worship of icons, based on the relationship between the image and the prototype, and recognized the only practical significance of the icons as decoration of churches and a guide for the illiterate. Not the last role in the negative attitude towards the Cathedral was played by the extremely low quality of the armor available. translation of his deeds; in particular, the words of Constantine, Met. Kiprsky, about the inadmissibility of worshiping icons in the sense of service, were understood in the opposite sense, as an attempt to attribute to the icons decent only to the Holy Trinity service and worship. The document was adopted at the Frankfurt Council in 794 with the participation of papal legates. Pope Adrian and his successors defended themselves against the attacks of the Franks, who again condemned the position of Rome and the "Greeks" regarding icons at the Council of Paris in 825; at the Council of Constantinople 869-870. (the so-called "eighth ecumenical") the envoys of Rome confirmed the definitions of the VII Ecumenical Council. In the West, the veneration of icons has not been recognized as a universally binding dogma, although the theoretical justification for icon veneration in the Catholic. theology as a whole corresponded to the 7th Ecumenical Council.
In Byzantium itself, after the "relapse" of iconoclasm (815-843), caused primarily by the most severe military failures under the icon-worshipping emperors, this heresy was finally eliminated under the imp. St. Theodore and imp. Michael III; at a ceremony called the Triumph of Orthodoxy (), the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council were solemnly confirmed. With the victory over the last significant heresy, which is recognized as iconoclasm, the era of Ecumenical Councils, recognized in Orthodoxy, comes to an end. Churches. The dogma worked out on them was fixed in the "Synodikon in the week of Orthodoxy".
Theology of the Council
The VII Ecumenical Council was no less than a Council of "librarians and archivists." Extensive collections of patristic quotations, historical and hagiographic evidence were supposed to show the theological correctness of icon veneration and its historical rootedness in tradition. It was also necessary to revise the iconoclastic florilegium of the Council of Hieria: as it turned out, the iconoclasts widely resorted to fraud, for example, pulling quotations out of context. Some references were easily deflected by pointing out the heresy of the authors: the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea and the Monophysites Sevir of Antioch and Philoxen of Hierapolis (Mabbugsky) could not have authority for the Orthodox. Theologically meaningful Refutation of the Ierian definition. “The icon is similar to the prototype not in essence, but only in name and in the position of the depicted members. A painter who paints someone's image does not seek to depict the soul in the image ... although no one thought that the painter separated a person from his soul. It is all the more senseless to accuse icon worshipers of claiming to represent the deity himself. Rejecting the accusation of the iconodules of the Nestorian division of Christ, the Refutation says: “The Catholic Church, confessing an unmerged union, mentally and only mentally inseparably divides natures, confessing Immanuel as one even after the union.” “The icon is another matter, and the prototype is another matter, and none of the prudent people will ever look for the properties of the prototype on the icon. The true mind does not recognize anything more on the icon than its similarity in name, and not in essence, with the one depicted on it. Replying to the iconoclastic teaching that the true image of Christ is the Eucharistic Body and Blood, the Refutation says: “Neither the Lord, nor the apostles, nor the fathers ever called the bloodless sacrifice offered by the priest an image, but called it the Body itself and the Blood itself.” In presenting the Eucharistic Views as an image, the iconoclasts are mentally divided between Eucharistic realism and symbolism. Icon veneration approved at the Holy. A tradition that does not always exist in a written form: “Many things have been handed down to us in writing, including the preparation of icons; it has also been widespread in the Church since the time of the apostolic sermon. The word is a visual means, but there are other means of representation. “Pictorialism is inseparable from the gospel narrative and, conversely, the gospel narrative is inseparable from the figurativeness.” The iconoclasts considered the icon to be an “ordinary object”, since no prayers were supposed to be used to consecrate the icons. The 7th Ecumenical Council answered this: “Over many of such objects that we recognize as saints, a sacred prayer is not read, because by their very name they are full of holiness and grace ... denoting [an icon] with a well-known name, we attribute its honor to prototype; kissing her and worshiping her with reverence, we receive sanctification. Iconoclasts consider it an insult to attempt to depict the heavenly glory of the saints by means of "inglorious and dead matter", "dead and despicable art". The Council condemns those who “consider matter vile.” If the iconoclasts had been consistent, they would also have rejected sacred garments and vessels. Man, belonging to the material world, cognizes the supersensible through the senses: “Since we are, without a doubt, sensual people, in order to know and remember every divine and pious tradition, we need sensible things.”
"Determination of the holy Great and Ecumenical Council, the second in Nicaea" reads:
“...we preserve all church traditions, approved in writing or non-written. One of them commands to make pictorial icon images, since this, in accordance with the history of the gospel sermon, serves as confirmation that God the Word is true, and not ghostly incarnated, and serves to our benefit, because such things that mutually explain each other, without doubts and prove each other. On this basis, we, who walk the royal path and follow the divine teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church - for we know that the Holy Spirit dwells in it - determine with all diligence and discretion that holy and honest icons be offered (for worship) exactly as well as the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, whether they will be made of paints or (mosaic) tiles or from any other substance, if only they were made in a decent way, and whether they will be in the holy churches of God on sacred vessels and clothes , on the walls and on the tablets, or in houses and along the roads, as well as whether they will be icons of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, or the immaculate Lady of our Holy Mother of God, or honest angels and all holy and righteous men. The more often with the help of icons they are made the subject of our contemplation, the more those who look at these icons are aroused to the memory of the very prototypes, acquire more love for them and receive more motivation to give them kisses, reverence and worship, but not the true service that, according to our faith, belongs to the divine nature alone. They are excited to bring incense to icons in honor of them and consecrate them, just as they do it in honor of the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, holy angels and other sacred offerings, and as, according to pious aspiration, this was usually done in antiquity; because the honor given to the icon refers to its prototype, and the worshiper of the icon worships the hypostasis depicted on it. Such a teaching is contained in our holy fathers, that is, in the tradition of the Catholic Church, which received the Gospel from ends to ends [of the earth]... - either innovations, or reject anything that is dedicated to the Church, whether it be the Gospel, or the image of the cross, or icon painting, or the holy remains of the martyr, as well as (daring) with cunning and cunning to invent something for that in order to overthrow at least any of the legitimate traditions found in the Catholic Church, and finally (daring) to give common use to sacred vessels and venerable monasteries - we determine that such, if they are bishops or clerics, should be deposed, if there are monks or laity would be excommunicated"
The custom of convening councils to discuss important ecclesiastical issues dates back to the first centuries of Christianity. The first of the known Councils was convened in the year 49 (according to other sources - in the 51st) in Jerusalem and received the name of the Apostolic (see: Acts 15, 1-35). At the Council, the issue of observance by Christians from pagans of the requirements of the Mosaic law was discussed. It is also known that the apostles met to make common decisions before: for example, when the apostle Matthias was elected instead of the fallen Judas Iscariot, or when seven deacons were elected.
Councils were both Local (with the participation of bishops, other clergy, and sometimes the laity of the Local Church) and Ecumenical.
Cathedrals Ecumenical were convened on especially important ecclesiastical issues of importance to the entire Church. They were attended, if possible, by representatives of all the Local Churches, pastors and teachers from all over the Universe. Ecumenical Councils are the highest ecclesiastical authority, they are held under the leadership of Holy Spirit active in the Church.
The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils: I of Nicaea; I Constantinople; Ephesian; Chalcedonian; II Constantinople; III Constantinople; II Nicene.
I Ecumenical Council
It took place in June 325 in the city of Nicaea during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great. The council was directed against the false teaching of the Alexandrian Presbyter Arius, who rejected the Divinity and the pre-eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, from God the Father and taught that the Son of God is only the highest Creation. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the dogma of the Divinity of Jesus Christ: The Son of God is the True God, born of God the Father before all ages and is just as eternal as God the Father; He is born, not created, consubstantial with God the Father.
At the Council, the first seven articles of the Creed were drawn up.
At the First Ecumenical Council, it was also decided to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon, which falls on the period after the spring equinox.
The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (Canon 20) abolished prostration on Sundays, since the feast of Sunday is a prototype of our stay in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Other important church rules were also adopted.
It took place in 381 in Constantinople. Its participants gathered to condemn the heresy of Macedon, the former Arian bishop. He rejected the Deity of the Holy Spirit; taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, called Him a created power and, moreover, serving God the Father and God the Son. The Council condemned the pernicious false doctrine of Macedonia and approved the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.
The Nicene Creed was supplemented with five terms. Work on the Creed was completed, and it received the name of Niceo-Tsaregradsky (Tsargrad was called Constantinople in Slavonic).
The Council was convened in the city of Ephesus in 431 and directed against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who claimed that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the man Christ, with whom God later united and dwelt in Him, as in a temple. Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and the Blessed Virgin not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ. The Council condemned the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize that in Jesus Christ, from the time of the incarnation, two natures were united: Divine and human. It was also determined to confess Jesus Christ perfect God and perfect human, and the Blessed Virgin Mary - Mother of God.
The Council approved the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed and forbade making changes to it.
How evil the heresy of Nestorius is, is evidenced by the story in the "Spiritual Meadow" by John Moschus:
“We came to Abba Cyriacus, presbyter of the Kalamos Lavra, which is near the sacred Jordan. He told us: “Once in a dream I saw a majestic Wife, dressed in purple, and with Her two husbands, shining with holiness and dignity. Everyone stood outside my cell. I understood that this is our Lady the Mother of God, and the two husbands are St. John the Theologian and St. John the Baptist. Leaving the cell, I asked to come in and make a prayer in my cell. But she did not deign. I did not stop pleading, saying: “Let me not be rejected, humiliated and confounded” and much more. Seeing the persistence of my request, She sternly answered me: “You have My enemy in your cell. How do you want me to come in?" Having said this, she left. I woke up and began to grieve deeply, imagining whether I had sinned against Her at least in thought, since there was no one else in the cell except me. After a long examination of myself, I did not find in myself any sin against Her. Immersed in sadness, I got up and took a book to dispel my grief by reading. I had in my hands the book of the blessed Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem. Opening the book, I found at the very end of it two sermons of the wicked Nestorius and immediately realized that he was the enemy of the Most Holy Theotokos. Rising immediately, I went out and returned the book to the person who had given it to me.
Take back your book, brother. It did not so much good as harm.
He wished to know what the harm was. I told him about my dream. Filled with jealousy, he immediately cut out two words of Nestorius from the book and betrayed him to the flames.
“May the enemy of our Lady, the Most Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, not remain in my cell,” he said!
It took place in 451 in the city of Chalcedon. The council was directed against the false teachings of the archimandrite of one of the monasteries of Constantinople, Eutyches, who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Eutyches taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature is completely absorbed in the Divine, and recognized in Christ only the Divine nature. This heresy was called Monophysitism (Gr. mono- the only one; physis- nature). The Council condemned this heresy and defined the teaching of the Church: The Lord Jesus Christ is the True God and the true man, similar to us in everything, except for sin. At the incarnation of Christ, divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, inseparable and inseparable, indivisible and inseparable.
In 553, the Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in Constantinople. The Council discussed the writings of three bishops who died in the fifth century: Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Willow of Edessa. The first was one of the teachers of Nestorius. Theodoret sharply opposed the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Under the name of Willows, there was a letter addressed to Mary the Persian, which contained irreverent comments about the decision of the III Ecumenical Council against Nestorius. All three writings of these bishops were condemned at the Council. Since Theodoret and Iva renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church, they themselves were not condemned. Theodore of Mopsuetsky did not repent and was condemned. The council also confirmed the condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.
The Council was convened in 680 in Constantinople. He condemned the false teaching of the Monothelite heretics, who, despite the fact that they recognized two natures in Christ - Divine and human, taught that the Savior had only one - Divine - will. Patriarch Sophrony of Jerusalem and Constantinopolitan monk Maximus the Confessor courageously fought against this widespread heresy.
The Council condemned the Monothelite heresy and decided to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and two wills. The human will in Christ is not opposed, but submissive Divine will. This is most clearly expressed in the gospel story about the Savior's Gethsemane prayer.
Eleven years later, the council meetings continued at the Council, which received the name Fifth-sixth, since he supplemented the acts of the V and VI Ecumenical Councils. It dealt mainly with issues of church discipline and piety. Rules were approved according to which the Church should be governed: the eighty-five canons of the holy apostles, the canons of the six Ecumenical and seven Local Councils, and the canons of the thirteen Church Fathers. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the VII Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils and made up the so-called Nomocanon - a book of church canonical rules (in Russian - "The Pilot Book").
This cathedral also received the name of Trull: it was held in the royal chambers, called Trull.
It took place in 787 in the city of Nicaea. Even sixty years before the Council, the iconoclastic heresy arose under the emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to make it easier for the Mohammedans to convert to Christianity, decided to abolish the veneration of holy icons. The heresy continued under subsequent emperors: his son Constantine Copronymus and grandson Leo Khazar. The 7th Ecumenical Council was convened to condemn the heresy of iconoclasm. The Council decided to honor the holy icons along with the image of the Cross of the Lord.
But even after the 7th Ecumenical Council, the heresy of iconoclasm was not completely destroyed. Under the three subsequent emperors, there were new persecutions of icons, and they continued for another twenty-five years. Only in 842, under Empress Theodora, did the Local Council of Constantinople take place, which finally restored and approved icon veneration. A feast was established at the Council Celebrations of Orthodoxy, which we have since celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent.
By the 5th century, widespread veneration of icons had entered church life. However, in the Church, some clergymen, faced with delusions in popular life, when the veneration of sacred images took distorted forms (many believers really worshiped icons as such, and not images on them), directly called icon veneration idolatry. This attitude towards icons was also shared by the Byzantine emperor Leo the Isaurian (c.680-741). Under his reign, the Byzantine Empire entered into iconoclastic period.
Iconoclasts considered sacred images to be idols, and the cult of icon veneration was idolatry., referring to the Old Testament commandments (" do not make for yourself an idol and no image of what is in heaven above ... do not worship them and do not serve them"(Ex. 20:4-5)).
Historical situation
Iconoclasm historically developed against the backdrop of a grandiose invasion of Muslims. The Arabs occupied most of Asia Minor. The Carthaginian Church, which could not withstand the collision with Islam, disappeared. The same threat hung over the entire Church. The rulers of Byzantium began to look for a common ground on which to come to an agreement with Islam, so that Islam would allow the preaching of Christ.
Leo III the Isaurian (717-741)
Wanting to convert Mohammedans to Christianity, Emperor Leo considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons, as one of the obstacles to the non-recognition of icon painting by Islam. Opponents of Leo III reproached him for being too fond of Arab culture and paying attention to the arguments of Muslims and Jews against "idols".
The emperor began persecution of icons in 726, publishing Decree against the worship of icons. He ordered to raise all the icons in the temples to such a height that the people could not touch them.
The imperial power and the iconoclast bishops were opposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Germanus (715-730). The patriarch was also supported by Pope Gregory. He wrote to the emperor that Rome would go out of his power if he insisted on the destruction of icon veneration. But the warnings didn't work. Having condemned the veneration of holy images, the emperor did not want to retreat, even seeing with his own eyes the unpleasant consequences of his step.
In 730, Emperor Leo III the Isaurian banned the veneration of icons, declaring it a crime.. He ordered the soldiers to remove and break the especially revered icon of Christ over the gates of his palace. One of the soldiers went up the stairs to follow the order, but the crowd did not let the mockery end. The people, in the heat of indignation, overturned the ladder and put to death the fallen warrior. By order of the emperor, the main perpetrators of the massacre were executed, Patriarch Herman was deposed. By decree of the emperor, the icons were taken out of the churches and burned, and the bishops who opposed this were expelled.
Christians split into two parties - iconodules and iconoclasts. Under the banner of protecting the holy images, all circles hostile to the emperor stood up, uprisings swept across the country.
Thus began the cruel persecution of holy icons, which continued under his son and grandson. The result of iconoclasm was the destruction of thousands of icons, as well as mosaics, frescoes, statues of saints and painted altars in many churches.
Constantine V Copronymus (741-775)
After the death of Emperor Leo III, his son Constantine V Copronymus continued to persecute icon veneration with even greater perseverance and cruelty. He wanted to condemn and destroy icon veneration as a heresy.
In 754, at a false council in Hieria, iconoclasm was proclaimed as the official church doctrine of the Byzantine Empire, approved by the signatures of more than 330 bishops (this cathedral is also called "headless", since not a single patriarch was present at its opening).
The definitions of the false council were carried out with unusual rigidity. Without stopping at the veneration of icons, Constantine V went further. He wanted to destroy the veneration of saints and their relics, monastic life, considering all this superstition. By his order, the relics of the saints were either burned or thrown into the sea. The monasteries were turned into barracks or stables. The monks were expelled, and those who openly condemned the actions of the emperor and defended icon veneration were subjected to painful death.
Leo IV Khazar (775-780)
After the death of Constantine, his son Leo Khazar (his mother was the daughter of the Khazar Khagan), according to his father's will, had to continue the struggle with icons. But Leo turned out to be a man of weak character. His Athenian wife Irina, who secretly supported icon veneration, had a great influence on him.
Having ascended the throne, Emperor Leo IV Khazar (775-780), under the influence of his wife, stopped the persecution against the monks, but did not want to openly break with the iconoclastic convictions of his father and grandfather.
In the spring of 780, under the auspices of Empress Irina, a secret icon worshiper, Patriarch Paul IV, was elected to the throne of Constantinople.
Soon the emperor was informed about the palace conspiracy. Having discovered during the investigation the icons in the chambers of the Empress Irina, Leo resumed the persecution against icon worshipers, accusing them of abusing his good attitude. Several high-ranking courtiers and dignitaries were severely punished and imprisoned for hiding icons. The Empress fell into disgrace.
Empress Irina
At the end of 780, Emperor Leo IV died suddenly. After the death of her husband, Irina was proclaimed regent for her 9-year-old son, Emperor Constantine VI. She managed to prevent the conspiracy and concentrated all power in her hands. Irina became the first (but not the last) woman to directly rule the Byzantine Empire. She resolutely declared herself the protector of icons. The revival of the monasteries began. The positions of the iconoclasts, left without the support of the imperial power, were sharply weakened. A discussion began in society about the need to restore the veneration of icons.
VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
In 787 in the church of St. Sophia was called by Queen Irina VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, at which 367 fathers appeared, at which the condemnation of iconoclasm as a heresy took place.
The Holy Fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council collected the church experience of veneration of holy icons from the first times, substantiated it and formulated Dogma on icon veneration for all times and for all peoples who profess the Orthodox faith. The Holy Fathers proclaimed that the veneration of icons is the statute and Tradition of the Church, it is directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit living in the Church. The depiction of icons is inseparable from the gospel narrative. And what the gospel word tells us through hearing, the same icon shows through the image.
The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to place and place in holy churches, along with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, to honor and worship them, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the Saints, on them depicted.
The 7th Ecumenical Council affirmed that icon painting is a special form of revelation of Divine reality, and through Divine Liturgy and icons, Divine revelation becomes the property of believers. Through the icon, as well as through the Holy Scriptures, we not only learn about God, we know God; through the icons of the holy saints of God, we touch a transfigured person, a partaker of Divine life; through the icon we receive the all-sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.
Every day the Holy Church glorifies the icons of the Mother of God, celebrates the memory of the saints of God. Their icons are placed in front of us on the lectern for worship, and the living religious experience of each of us, the experience of our gradual transformation through them, makes us faithful children of the Holy Orthodox Church.
The 7th Ecumenical Council was the final Council, the Council, which completed the Christological disputes about the Incarnation.
However, iconoclasm did not immediately give up its positions. After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again instituted by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balboi and Theophilus, and for about 25 more years worried the Church.
The veneration of holy icons was finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora. In honor of this victory, a Feast of the Celebration of Orthodoxy.
Seventh Ecumenical Council. Triumph of Orthodoxy
The meaning of victory over the heresy of iconoclasm
What is the final meaning of the victory over the heresy of iconoclasm? The point is that a true understanding of the meaning of the icon, church art, has been established in the Church. Icon painting as the vision of God, as a kind of speculation, grew out of the Gospel understanding of the world. First of all, from the incarnation of Christ. Since Christ became incarnate, God is invisible, indescribable and indescribable, which in Greek is the same as indefinable, God became definable, visible, because He is in the flesh. And as the Lord said: Seeing me, seeing and the Father».
Glorifying the memory of the holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, we must remember that it is to them that we are obliged to give thanks for the fact that our churches and houses are consecrated with holy icons, for the living lights of lamps glimmer in front of them, that we bow down before the holy relics and the incense of frankincense raises our hearts to heaven. And the gratitude of the revelation from these shrines filled many, many hearts with love for God and inspired to life an already completely dead spirit.
Troparion of St. Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Tone 8:
Glorious art Thou, O Christ our God, / our fathers who have shone on the earth / and by those who instructed us all to the true faith, / Many-merciful, glory to Thee.
Law of God. Seventh Ecumenical Council
Thoughts on the icon (excerpt from the book by G.I. Krug)
In its definitions, the Seventh Ecumenical Council repeatedly indicates what the veneration of holy icons should be like, how an icon can be saving. The Council believes that the main meaning of the veneration of icons is not in the veneration and worship of the very matter of the icon, not in the veneration of the boards and paints or mosaic tiles themselves, but in the spiritual effort, looking at the image, to raise attention to the very source of the image of the Invisible Archetype God. Such a confession of the veneration of icons by the Seventh Ecumenical Council places the sacred image, as it were, on the verge of the visible and tangible world and the spiritual, divine world. The icon becomes, as it were, a visible symbol of the invisible world, its tangible seal, and its meaning is to be the bright gate of ineffable mysteries, the path of divine ascent.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Fathers of the Church, whose creations were of particular importance at the Council, in particular, perhaps, St. John of Damascus, emphasize precisely this meaning of the veneration of icons. Basically, for the fathers of the Cathedral, the icon of Christ and the icon of the Mother of God, especially when She is depicted with the Child, is evidence of the unfalseness of the incarnation of Christ. There is another meaning of such inseparability of the icons of Christ and the Mother of God. As L. Uspensky points out, the icon of Christ is the image of the incarnated God, while the icon of the Mother of God is the perfect image of the deified man, on which our salvation rests. The Word became flesh in order to make man a partaker of the Divine.
Icons of saints are confirmation and development of the same basis. The Image of Christ not made by hands is, as it were, the first seal and the source of every image, and every image comes from it and is born in it, the source of a river that rushes its waters into endless life. These waters are an innumerable wealth of icons, generated and originating from the Image of Christ Not Made by Hands and guiding the Church in its relentless movement towards the end of time and the Kingdom of the Future Age.
And I also think that the Image of Christ Not Made by Hands is not only a source of sacred images, but also an image that sheds light and sanctifies both the image and non-church art. For example, primarily the art of portraiture. In this sense, the icon in its church liturgical existence is not separated from external art, but is like a snowy peak that pours streams into the valley, filling it and giving life to everything. There is another intimate connection between the icon and external, non-ecclesiastical painting. The icon engenders in painting, which is alien to the Church, sometimes completely earthly, a mysterious thirst to become churched, to change its nature, and the icon in this case is a heavenly leaven, from which the dough sours.
Preparing for the convocation of the Council
In order to prepare for the holding of the Ecumenical Council, Irene in 784 organized the election of a new Patriarch of Constantinople to replace the deceased Patriarch Paul. When discussing candidates in the Mangavar Palace of Constantinople, after the welcoming speech of the empress, there were exclamations in support of Tarasius, who was not a clergyman, but held the position of asikrit (imperial secretary). Irina wanted to see Tarasius as patriarch (“ we appoint him, but he does not obey”), and he, in turn, supported the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council. The opposition present in the palace argued that the convening of the Council was inexpedient, since at the Council of 754 a decision had already been made condemning icon veneration, but the voice of the iconoclasts was muffled by the will of the majority.
Patriarch Tarasy
Tarasius was quickly elevated to all degrees of the priesthood, and on December 25, 784, on the feast of the Nativity of Christ, he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople, which he remained for the next 22 years. After that, the elected patriarch, according to tradition, sent out a statement of his religion to all the primates of the churches. In addition, invitations to the Ecumenical Council were sent out, written on behalf of Irina, her son Emperor Constantine and Tarasius himself. In Rome, an invitation was also sent to Pope Adrian I to take part in the upcoming Council:
First attempt to open the Cathedral in 786
The opening of the Council was scheduled for August 7, 786 in Constantinople. The iconoclast bishops who arrived in the capital even before the opening of the Cathedral began to negotiate in the garrison, trying to enlist the support of the soldiers. On August 6, a rally was held in front of the Hagia Sophia demanding that the opening of the Cathedral be prevented. Despite this, Irina did not change the appointed date, and on August 7 the Cathedral was opened in the Church of the Holy Apostles. When they began to read the holy scriptures, armed soldiers, supporters of the iconoclasts, burst into the temple:
The bishops supporting Irina had no choice but to disperse. Having experienced a setback, Irina set about preparing the convocation of a new Council. Under the pretext of a war with the Arabs, the imperial court was evacuated to Thrace, and the garrison loyal to the iconoclasts was sent deep into Asia Minor (supposedly to meet the Arabs), where the veterans were resigned and paid generous salaries. Constantinople was placed under the protection of another guard, recruited from Thrace and Bithynia, where the views of the iconoclasts were not widespread.
Having completed the preparations for the Council, Irina did not dare to hold it again in the capital, but chose for this purpose remote Nicaea in Asia Minor, in which the First Ecumenical Council took place in 325.
The work of the Council in 787
As a result of the work, the Oros of the Cathedral was adopted, restoring the veneration of icons and allowing the use of icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, Angels and Saints in churches and homes, to honor them with worship (but not in the way that is befitting to God), but with kissing, lighting lamps in front of them and incense):
|
After the closing of the Council, the bishops were dismissed to their dioceses with gifts from Irina. The empress ordered that an image of Jesus Christ be made and placed over the gates of Halkopratia to replace the one destroyed 60 years ago under Emperor Leo III the Isaurian. An inscription was made to the image: " [the image], which once overthrown the lord Leo, was again established here by Irina».
The decisions of this council aroused indignation among the Frankish king Charlemagne (the future emperor), and in 792 he sent the pope a list of 85 mistakes that were made at this council. Charles considered the approval of the Byzantine formula that " The Holy Spirit comes from the Father”- the main“ sin ”, and insisted on adding the words:“ and from the Son» (filioque). This continued the old dogmatic dispute between the Eastern and Western churches.
The theological disputes about the filioque were part of a broad controversy between West and East.
Consequences
The cathedral was unable to stop the movement of the iconoclasts. This was done only at the Council of Constantinople in 843 under Empress Theodora. To commemorate the final victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established, which is supposed to be celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent and which is still celebrated in the Orthodox Church.
Notes
Links
- Dil Sh. Byzantine portraits(Chapter: Empress Irene)
- Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils(Chapter: VII Ecumenical Council of 787)
- Lozinsky S. G. History of the papacy. (Chapter Two. Formation of the Papal States (VI-VIII centuries))
| Ecumenical Councils | |
|---|---|
| Eastern and Western churches | First Council of Nicaea | First Council of Constantinople | Ephesus Cathedral | Chalcedon Cathedral | Second Council of Constantinople | Third Council of Constantinople | Second Council of Nicaea |
| Eastern Church | Great Sophia Cathedral | Trull Cathedral |
| Western church | Fourth Council of Constantinople | First Lateran Council | Second Lateran Council | Third Lateran Council | Fourth Lateran Council | First Lyon Cathedral | Second Lyon Cathedral | |
From 775 to 780, the son of Constantine Kopronimus Leo IV Khazar ruled (his mother was the daughter of the Khazar Khagan). His wife was an Athenian Irina. Konstantin Kopronym, before the wedding of his son, took an oath from the Athenian beauty that she would not worship icons, which she was used to at home. Irina took an oath, but did not change her heart. There is a story when her husband found two icons under her pillow, and she hardly managed to justify herself. However, relations were heating up, and if Leo had not died suddenly, Irina, most likely, would not have remained in the palace.
After the death of her husband, she was appointed regent for Leo's son Constantine VI. This was a challenge to the iconoclastic party. They tried by way of a coup to reign the son of Copronymus from a third wife. But the plot was uncovered, the conspirators were exiled, and the applicant and his brothers were tonsured monks.
Having thus strengthened herself on the throne, Irina abolished the persecution of icon veneration and gradually began preparations for the Ecumenical Council. Before his death (784), Patriarch Pavel spoke about the need to convene it.
The imperial secretary Tarasios was elected the new patriarch, who, as an indispensable condition for his consent to the patriarchate, decreed the restoration of communion between the Church of Constantinople and the Orthodox Church of the East and West through the Ecumenical Council. The condition was accepted, and on December 25, 784, Tarasius was ordained patriarch. Measures were immediately taken to convene an Ecumenical Council. They recently (782) made peace with the Arabs, so it was possible to send invitations to the council on behalf of the patriarch and empress not only to Rome, but also to the eastern patriarchs.
Pope Adrian I sent a response message to the Empress, in which he spoke of the uselessness of the cathedral and put forward a number of demands that were incomprehensible and unacceptable for the Greeks.
The Pope strongly recommended to the Empress to imitate Constantine and Elena, who "exalted your holy, catholic and apostolic, spiritual mother, the Roman Church, and with other Orthodox emperors revered as the head of all churches." Prosperity and glory are promised, “if, following the traditions of the Orthodox faith, you accept the judgment of the Church of Blessed Peter, the prince of the supreme apostles, and love their vicar with all your heart.” As an example of such relations with the Roman Church, the pope cites the legend of the baptism of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine in Rome. The "catholic and apostolic Church of Rome" is declared "blameless, sinless, and infallible" (irreprehensibilis).
There were other demands in the pope's message: a) to begin the matter with a solemn anathema imposed on the council of 754, in the presence of the legates of Pope Hadrian; b) send him, the pope, on behalf of the emperors, the patriarch and the senate, a written act with an oath guarantee that complete impartiality will be maintained at the upcoming council, there will be no violence for the papal legates, their honor will be guaranteed, and in case of failure they will be safe will be sent home; c) if the emperors return to the Orthodox faith, then they must completely return the patrimonia Petri, i.e. areas of southern Italy, selected by Leo the Isaurian for the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to return to the popes also the ancient right to appoint bishops there. “The Roman Church had primacy over all the churches of the Universe, the approval of the councils belonged to it”; d) the pope also sharply objects to the usual title of the Patriarch of Constantinople - "ecumenical".
“We do not know whether the title “ecumenical” (in the imperial decree) was written out of ignorance, or as a result of the schism or heresy of the wicked. In any case, we earnestly ask your imperial power that the title universalis not be used in your writings, for it is contrary to the decrees of the holy canons and the decisions of Sts. fathers. After all, if someone writes himself "universal", setting himself above the holy Roman Church, which is superior to him, which is the head of all the churches of God, then, obviously, he declares himself an opponent of the holy councils and a heretic. Because if he is "universal", then he has primacy over the cathedra even of our Church. And this is ridiculous for all faithful Christians, since in the whole universe the Redeemer of the world Himself has given headship and authority (principatus ac potestas) to the blessed Apostle Peter and through this apostle, whose substitutes, although unworthy, are we, the holy catholic and apostolic Church of Rome. constantly, to this day and forever, contains the primacy and authority of power ... This commandment of the Lord to the Apostle Peter about the management of the church should not be carried out by any other department of the universal church to a greater extent than the primacy of Rome, which affirms each council with its authority, and guarded by uninterrupted leadership.
“Therefore, if anyone would, which we do not even believe, call the Patriarch of Constantinople ecumenical, or agree to this, let him know that he is a stranger to the Orthodox faith and an opponent of our holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
What a striking change from the argument of St. Pope Gregory the Great, who also opposed the title "ecumenical" of the Patriarchs of Constantinople!
Of course, in Constantinople, all these statements were met with great surprise. However, the father was very necessary. In view of the precariousness of the situation and the strong opposition to icon veneration, the authority of the see of Old Rome could be decisive and tip the scales in the right direction. At the same time, it was understood in Constantinople that the eastern bishops of the epistle would never accept this, and therefore they translated it very selectively, omitting all the controversial points.
The first attempt to open a cathedral in Constantinople in 786 failed. The army remembered and revered Copronymus, so the cathedral meetings had to be evacuated from the capital.
2. The VII Ecumenical Council was opened only in 787 in Nicaea, which was very symbolic. Up to 350 bishops and many monks were present. There were 8 sessions of the Council in total; the first took place in Nicaea, in the church of St. Sophia, September 24, 787, and the last - in the presence of the emperors in Constantinople on October 23. Thus, the Council was comparatively brief.
The two legates of the pope sat and signed first; but the actual chairman, directing the course of the matter, was Patriarch Tarasy. The Empress was not personally present: she was represented at the Council by two dignitaries who had no noticeable influence on the external procedure of the meetings.
The gospel was placed in the middle of the temple. Only at the 5th meeting, at the suggestion of the Roman legates, was it decided to bring the icon and bow to it. This episode is very characteristic and showed how, during the years of persecution, everyone had become unaccustomed to the presence of icons in churches.
The peculiarity of the Council was also the presence of several bishops who were named, but not yet ordained, in the rank of locum tenens of their departments, as well as the active participation in it of the abbots or their representatives: they signed the final oros of the Council along with the bishops. This illustrates the important role that the monastics played at the Council.
At the Council, a very important question from a canonical point of view arose about the acceptance into communion of bishops who expressed heretical views or were ordained by heretics. This is the only case when a question of this kind was raised and investigated in detail at the Ecumenical Council. The bishops involved in the iconoclastic turmoil were divided into three categories.
The bishops of the first category were, apparently, so little involved in iconoclasm that their acceptance did not cause any difficulties. They only brought their sincere repentance, professed the Orthodox faith and were immediately accepted into communion.
The adoption of the second category was discussed for quite some time. A thorough investigation was carried out. In the end, the Council came to the following opinion: iconoclast bishops, who were not "teachers of heresy" in the strict sense, should be accepted into communion in the existing rank because of their repentance; if their conversion to Orthodoxy is a deceit, then let God judge them.
After that, the Council proceeded to the question of icon veneration. Serious research theological work was carried out, preparing the grounds for the irrigation. Each quote was checked against the source. On October 5 (6) the Oros of the Kopronymov Cathedral and an extremely detailed, “six-volume” refutation of it were read.
On October 13, at the 7th session of the Council, Bishop Theodore of Taurus (Southern Italy) read the Oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Here it is:
“And to put it briefly, we store in a new way all the church traditions established for us in writing or without writing. One of them is an image in icon painting, as consistent with the story of the gospel sermon, serving us as a certificate of the genuine, and not a ghostly incarnation of God the Word; for things that mutually point to each other no doubt clarify each other.
Therefore, we, walking, as it were, on the royal path and following the divinely spoken teaching of Sts. of the Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit who lives in it, with all diligence and circumspection we determine: like the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross, to put in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths , honest and bright icons, painted with paints and made of mosaics and other materials suitable for this, the icons of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the immaculate Lady of our Holy Mother of God, also honest angels and all saints and reverend men. For the more often they are visible through the image on the icons, the more those who look at them are prompted to remember the prototypes themselves and to love them, and to honor them with kisses and reverent worship (fymzfykzn rspukenzuin), not those that are true in our opinion. faith by service (lbfseYabn), which befits only the Divine nature, but veneration according to the same model as it is given to the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross and St. The gospel and other holy things, incense and the setting of candles, as was done according to the pious custom of the ancients.
For the honor given to the image goes back to the prototype, and the worshiper of the icon worships the hypostasis of the one depicted on it. This is the teaching of St. our father, i.e. the tradition of the Catholic Church, from end to end of the earth, which received the gospel.
Those who dare to think differently or teach, or, in agreement with impious heretics, reject church traditions and invent some kind of innovation, or reject something from the sacred Church, the Gospel, or the image of the cross, or icon painting, or St. the remains of a martyr, or plotting something with cunning and treachery to overthrow any of the traditions accepted in the Catholic Church, or to give extensive use to sacred vessels or holy monasteries, we decide, if they are bishops or clerics, to defrock, but if monks or the laity - to excommunicate.
Thus, the oros indicates: 1) the basis for the veneration of icons is the tradition of the Church; 2) an indisputable example of icon veneration, which was not disputed even by iconoclasts, is the veneration of the Cross; 3) places where icons are supposed to be depicted; 4) materials for the manufacture of icons (it is interesting that nothing is said about carved icons in oros); 5) image objects; 6) the moral meaning of the veneration of icons; 7) its dogmatic norms; 8) and, finally, ecclesiastical bans on the disobedient.
Having signed the protocol, the fathers exclaimed: “Such is our faith, such is the teaching of the apostles! Anathema to those who do not adjoin him, who do not honor icons, which they call idols and accuse Christians of idolatry for them. Many years to emperors! Eternal memory to the new Konstantin and the new Elena! May God bless their reign! Anathema to all heretics, Theodosius, the false bishop of Ephesus, Sisinnius Pastilla and Vasily Trikokav. Anathema Anastasius, Constantine and Nikita, who were successively patriarchs of Constantinople. They are Arius II, Nestorius II, Dioscorus II! Anathema to the heresiarchs John of Nicomedia and Constantine of Nakolia! Eternal memory to Herman (Constantinople), John (Damaskin), George (Cyprus) - these heroes of truth!
The Orthodox doctrine of the church image was not accepted by its opponents. As has often happened in the history of the Church, both before and after iconoclasm, not everyone was willing or able to accept the solemnly proclaimed truth. Peace lasted 27 years. It was followed by a second iconoclastic period.
