Ecumenical Councils VII Ecumenical Council of 787  Iconoclasm The beginning of iconoclasm under Leo the Isaurian (717-741) Escalation of the conflict with the West Constantine V (741-775) Iconoclastic Cathedral of 754 Constantine's persecution Protection of icons outside the empire In the West Emperor Leo IV the Khazar (775-780) The reign of Irene together with her son Constantine VI (780-790) Preparations for the Seventh Ecumenical Council An attempt to open an Ecumenical Council in 786 Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) Iconoclasm after the Seventh Ecumenical Council The Second Period of Iconoclasm Emperor Nicephorus (802-811) Michael I Rangawe (811-813), New iconoclasm. Leo V the Armenian (813-820) Second Iconoclastic Council of 815 Michael II Travlus (Tongue-tied, 820-829) Theophilus (829-842) The Triumph of Orthodoxy Reflection of the Iconoclastic Controversies after the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the West Paris Cathedral 825 The end of iconoclasm in the Frankish Empire The Reflection of Iconoclasm in the Armenian Church

Iconoclasm

The question of the veneration of icons does not seem to be in the spirit of Greek theological theorism and gnosis. As if this is a purely practical issue. But from the Greeks it received a very in-depth, truly theological formulation. It would be artificial to establish a logical connection with the former heresies for the emergence of iconoclasm. And the iconoclasts themselves somehow clumsily and quarrelsomely tried to reproach the Orthodox iconoclasts either of Nestorianism or of Monophysitism, without opposing them with anything fundamentally new.

Iconoclasm simply revealed and put forward one of the urgent and long-existing questions. This question approached the spirit of the next cultural and political program that the new Isaurian dynasty had put on the agenda. She made it combative.

The denial of icons has existed for a long time. Both the adoption of Christianity from the Jews and the period of persecution did not dispose to the magnificent development of the external embodiments of Christianity. But even in the first catacomb period of persecution, deliberately hidden symbolism could not but appear. Both sculpturally and pictorially depicted a four-pointed cross (sometimes as the letter X), a dove, a fish, a ship – all symbols understandable to Christians, even those taken from mythology, as, for example, Orpheus with his lyre or winged geniuses, which later became such typical images of angels. The fourth century, the age of freedom, brought to Christian churches the already generally accepted wall ornaments with whole biblical pictures and illustrations of new Christian heroes, martyrs and ascetics. St. Basil the Great, in a sermon dedicated to the memory of the martyr Barlaam, invites painters to sketch his feats, as usual. St. John Chrysostom informs us about the spread of images – portraits of St. Meletius of Antioch. Bl. Theodoret tells us about the portraits of Simeon the Stylite sold in Rome. Gregory of Nyssa is moved to tears by the picture of the sacrifice of Isaac. Asterius of Amasia admires the image of the martyr Euphemia. Custom becomes universal. From symbolism, which is rather abstract, iconography in the fourth century decisively passes to concrete illustrations of deeds and the depiction of persons in church history.

The latest excavations (1932) by Professor M. I. Rostovtsev on the Euphrates in the Roman city of Dura provide documentary evidence that already in the middle of the third century Christian churches and even Jewish synagogues (!!), following the fashion of Roman buildings, were painted with scenes from the Old Testament, and in Christian churches with scenes from the Gospel history.

But we also learn that in the sixth century not all teachers of the church liked this. Some people were seduced by these icons.

Eusebius of Caesarea responds negatively to the desire of the emperor's sister Constantius to have an icon of Christ. The divine nature is indescribable, "but we have been taught that his flesh is dissolved in the glory of the Godhead, and the mortal is swallowed up in life... Who, then, is able to depict with dead and soulless colors and shadows the radiance of radiance and radiant rays of the light of His glory and dignity?"

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in Anablat (Palestine), not in his diocese, saw a veil in the church with the image of a man (?). Epiphanius tore this veil and gave it to cover the coffin of some beggar, and presented a new piece of cloth to the church. In the West, in Spain, at the Council of Elvira (Grenada) (about 300), a decree was adopted against wall painting in churches. Rule 36: "Placuit picturas in ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur".

Attempts were made to interpret this decree against icons in the sense of protecting icons from the blasphemy of the persecutors of Christianity and the destroyers of temples, or from caricaturists and mockers from Jews and pagans. But the motif of the canon is not at all the same, but clearly iconoclastic. Therefore, it is now customary to explain this decree by a direct struggle against false icon worship, i.e. against pagan excesses, the intrusion of which into the Christian environment frightened the fathers of the council. Consequently, from the very beginning there was a purely internal and ecclesiastical disciplinary struggle with the veneration of icons.

In Monophysitism, according to its spiritualistic tendency to diminish human nature in Christ, an iconoclastic trend had long been outlined. As early as the reign of Zeno at the end of the fifth century, the Monophysitizing bishop of Syrian Hierapolis (Mabuga) Philoxenus (Xenaya) wanted to abolish icons in his diocese. Severus of Antioch also rejected icons of Christ, angels and the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Anastasius of Sinaite (6th century) defends icons against some deniers. Simeon the Stylite the Younger complains to Emperor Justinian II about the insulters of "the icons of the Son of God and the All-Holy Most Glorious Mother of God."