Ecumenical council VII

The Second Council of Nicaea

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea

The council that restored the veneration of holy images and distinguished the honour given to an icon from the worship due to God alone. It also issued twenty-two disciplinary canons.

Read aloud. Your browser speaks the page using the voices installed on this device. Nothing is uploaded — the text never leaves your computer. Voice quality varies by browser and device.

Date
787
Location
Nicaea in Bithynia
Convoked by
The Empress Irene and her son Constantine VI
Attendance
Around 350 bishops

Overview

For most of the eighth century the veneration of icons had been suppressed in the Byzantine empire, with imperial backing and with a council of its own — the gathering at Hiereia in 754, which called itself the seventh ecumenical council. The council of 787 rejected that gathering and restored the images.

Its central distinction is the one that makes the whole question tractable. The honour or reverence given to an icon passes to the one depicted; the worship due to God alone is given to God alone. The Greek terms are not interchangeable, and much of the confusion in later polemic comes from translating both by the same English word.

The argument is finally Christological. If God has genuinely become man, then he can be depicted as man. To say that Christ cannot be depicted is to say something about the reality of the incarnation, which is why the iconophile writers treat iconoclasm as a Christological error rather than a matter of taste.

The controversy

The iconoclast case, as the council's own extracts preserve it, was that an image of Christ must either circumscribe his divinity, which is impossible, or divide his person by depicting only his humanity. Its supporters also appealed to the commandment against graven images and to the danger of idolatry among ordinary Christians.

The iconophile reply distinguished between depicting a nature and depicting a person: an icon depicts the person of Christ as he was seen, and does not attempt to represent the divine nature at all. It also insisted that veneration is relative, directed through the image to its prototype.

The positions in play

The iconoclasts
Held that the making and veneration of images of Christ and the saints was idolatry, and that the only permitted image of Christ is the Eucharist. Backed for decades by imperial power.
The iconophiles
Held that the incarnation makes depiction possible and that veneration passes to the prototype. John of Damascus, writing from outside the empire, produced the most influential defence; Theodore the Studite continued it in the second phase of the controversy.
Tarasius of Constantinople
Presided. A former civil official raised to the patriarchate, he steered the council and its restoration of images.

What the council issued

The decree confirms the six preceding councils, condemns the iconoclast gathering, and defines that images of Christ, of the theotokos, of the angels and of the saints are to be set up in churches and honoured with reverence, without the worship that belongs to the divine nature alone.

The Decree of the Second Council of Nicaea

The council's central text, as printed in Percival's edition.

Conciliar text, as printed in the edition cited

The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice.

(Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia. Tom. VII., col. 552.)

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows:

Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that he would so preserve her: and gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said: “Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” which promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who should believe in his name through their word. But some, not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church, they have erred from the truth and as the proverb saith: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry and have gathered in their hands nothingness,” because certain priests, priests in name only, not in fact, had dared to speak against the God-approved ornament of the sacred monuments, of whom God cries aloud through the prophet, “Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion.”

And, forsooth, following profane men, led astray by their carnal sense, they have calumniated the Church of Christ our God, which he hath espoused to himself, and have failed to distinguish between holy and profane, styling the images of our Lord and of his Saints by the same name as the statues of diabolical idols. Seeing which things, our Lord God (not willing to behold his people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath of his good pleasure called us together, the chief of his priests, from every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our princes, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the traditions of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree. Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the Six Ecumenical Synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nice, as also that which was afterwards gathered together in the God-protected Royal City.

We believe…life of the world to come. Amen.535

535 Anastasius in his Interpretatio (Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. CXXIX., col. 458), gives the word, “Filioque.” Cardinal Julian in the Fifth Session of the Council of Florence gave evidence that there was then extant a very ancient codex containing these words; and this ms., which was in Greek, was actually shown. The Greek scholar Gemistius Pletho remarked that if this were so, then the Latin theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice.

We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled “Foes of the Spirit” (Pneumatomachi). We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two Persons [in Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [αὐλῆς] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions. Moreover, with these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent. To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains would long ago have appealed to the Synod. (Cf. Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. V., p. 374, Note 2.) This reasoning is not conclusive if Cardinal Bellarmine is to be believed, who says that St. Thomas had never seen the Acts of this synod. (De Imag. Sanct., Lib. ii., cap. xxii.)

alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.”

Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries,536 if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion. [After all had signed, the acclamations began (col. 576).]

The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except 536 Constantine Copronymus turned many monasteries into soldiers’ barracks. In this he has been followed by other crowned enemies of Christ.

Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.

Many years to the Emperors, etc., etc.

Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.

Canons

The council issued 22 canons in this edition. Twenty-two canons, archived here in full. They cover the knowledge of Scripture and the canons required of bishops, {{simony}}, the ordering of monasteries, and the conduct of clergy — a picture of a Church repairing itself after decades of internal conflict.

Read the canons

Who was there

Papal legates attended, as did representatives of the Eastern patriarchates then under Muslim rule. The empress Irene was the moving political force. A number of bishops who had supported iconoclasm were received back after making confession, and the sessions recording their reception are among the most interesting in the acts for what they show about how the Church readmitted those who had conformed under pressure.

Reception

Iconoclasm returned under Leo V in 815 and was not finally ended until 843, when the veneration of icons was restored under the empress Theodora — an event the Orthodox Church commemorates as the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

In the West the council's decisions were received at Rome but were badly served by a poor Latin translation, which rendered the Greek terms for veneration and worship indistinguishably. The Frankish response in the Libri Carolini attacked a position the council had not taken. It is a striking case of a translation problem producing a theological dispute.

Reception outside the Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox churches
Do not receive the council as ecumenical, though the veneration of icons is practised among them; their iconographic traditions vary.
Roman Catholic Church
Receives it as the seventh ecumenical council. The Frankish reaction described above did not become Rome's position.
Reformation churches
Generally do not receive it, and the treatment of images was one of the sharper disagreements of the sixteenth century.

Consequences

The council settled, for Orthodoxy, that the icon belongs to the Church's confession of the incarnation rather than to its decoration. Orthodox theology of the image has developed from its distinction ever since.

It is the last council received as ecumenical by the Orthodox Church. Later councils of great authority — the council of 879-880, the Palamite councils of 1341-1351 — are received without a universally agreed number, and this site does not assign them one.

Liturgical commemoration

The Fathers of the seventh council are commemorated in October. The end of iconoclasm in 843 is commemorated on the first Sunday of Great Lent as the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

  • John of Damascus

    The last of the Greek Fathers commonly so counted: a monk under Muslim rule who wrote the classic defence of holy images and the first systematic summary of Orthodox doctrine.

    Father or writer

  • Holy icons

    The image, the incarnation, and the difference between veneration and worship.

    Theme

  • Holy icons and the Seventh Council

    The image, the incarnation, and a controversy that lasted more than a century.

    Lesson

  • The Council of Chalcedon

    The council that confessed Christ in two natures, unconfused and undivided, in one person. Its definition is the classic Christological statement of the Church, and its reception divided the Church permanently.

    Council

Your notes

Stored in this browser only. Never uploaded, never visible to anyone else, and marked as your own words if you add this page to a study packet.

Sources for this page

  1. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice annotated edition of conciliar texts Archived in full. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  2. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Canons of the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council, Canons I-XXII annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)
  3. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, 754 annotated edition of conciliar texts The iconoclast case in its own words. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  4. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) Excursus on the Conciliabulum Styling Itself the Seventh Ecumenical Council annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)

Tiers are explained in the methodology. No page on this site has been reviewed or approved by any bishop, priest, synod or seminary.