But... this is followed by a logically unexpected reservation: "So that none of the primates of the churches dares, under the pretext of removing icons, to lay his hands on things dedicated to God (vessels, clothes, curtains), on which there are icon images (είναι αυτά ενζωδα). Whoever wishes to remake them, let him not dare to do so without the knowledge of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the permission of the emperor, so that the devil does not despise the churches of God under this pretext. And from among the secular authorities and subordinate laity, let no one lay hands on the churches of God and do not take them captive, as happened before from some rioters." Obviously, this had to be stipulated in the presence of extreme secular iconoclasts – secularizers of church property.

In conclusion, there was a detailed anathema on many points:

"If anyone contrives to represent the divine image of God the Word, as incarnate by means of material colors, instead of worshipping Him with all his heart with his mental eyes, who sits above the brightness of the sun at the right hand of God in the highest on the throne of glory, – anathema.

Whoever dares to depict the indescribable essence and hypostasis of the Word in anthropomorphic forms for the sake of His incarnation, and does not want to understand that the Word is indescribable even after His incarnation, is anathema.

Whoever dares to inscribe on an icon the hypostatic union of the two natures and begins to call the depicted Christ and thus confuse the two natures is anathema.

Whoever wants to depict the flesh of Christ, united to the face of the Word of God separated and separated from the Word Himself, is anathema.

The Trinity, anathema to him.

Whoever depicts the faces of the saints with material colors on soulless icons, which do not bring absolutely any benefit (!), for this thought is false and originated from the devil, and will not reflect on himself their virtues – these living icons, to him – anathema.

Anathema from the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the holy Ecumenical Councils, against him who does not accept this holy and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but in any sense rejects it and does not kiss with full readiness its definitions based on the teaching of the inspired Scriptures."

* * *

Thus, the question of the veneration (in this case, the rejection) of icons was posed by Eastern theologians in an Eastern, i.e. theological-metaphysical, way, and was connected with triadology and Christology. The iconoclasts drew incorrect conclusions from the Orthodox teaching about the Trinitarian and Incarnate God. But they did not distort the very teaching about the Incarnation. Their heresy was not the consequence of any corruption in Christology. Reproaches of this kind are polemical extremes.

In the same way, the iconoclasts did not touch the veneration of the Mother of God, as part of the Christological dogma, and the veneration of the saints. The Council of 754 clearly affirms these dogmas. Nor does the council say anything directly about the veneration of the relics of saints. But he had nothing to object to from the point of view of his theories. The iconoclasts, referring to the Old Testament commandment, all the time protested against the worship of things "made with hands, χειροποιητα".

This term is the strong point of the iconoclastic polemics with the church. And the relics were not man-made. What the iconoclasts are morally guilty of is the falsification of historical documents and evidence. When, later, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), the hierarchs who participated in the iconoclastic council were interrogated, how they could be convinced of the alleged patristic rejection of icons, the following falsity was revealed.

To the question "Were the original books read at this false council?" Gregory of Neocaesarea and Theodosius of Amora answered: "No, here is God! there they did not see books, and we were deceived by cards" (μη, ξ Θεος εκει βιβλος ουκ εφανη, αλλα δια ψευδοπιττακιων εξηπατον ημας).