Second Council of Nicaea

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Seventh Ecumenical Council
)
Second Council of Nicaea
Date787
Accepted by
Previous council
Next council
Convoked by
Iconoclasm
Documents and statements
veneration of icons approved
Chronological list of ecumenical councils
Part of a series on the
Eastern Orthodox Church
Christ Pantocrator (Deesis mosaic detail)
Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator, Hagia Sophia
Overview
Background
Organization
Autocephalous jurisdictions
Autocephalous Churches who are officially part of the communion:

Autocephaly recognized by some autocephalous Churches de jure:

Autocephaly and canonicity recognized by Constantinople and 3 other autocephalous Churches:

Spiritual independence recognized by Georgian Orthodox Church:


Autonomous jurisdictions

Semi-Autonomous:

Episcopal assemblies
Noncanonical jurisdictions
Ecumenical councils
  • Other possible ecumenical councils:
  • Other important councils:
History
Theology
Liturgy and worship
Liturgical calendar
  • The four fasting periods:
Major figures
Other topics
Part of a series on the
Ecumenical councils
of the Catholic Church
A Renaissance print depicting the Council of Trent
Renaissance depiction of the Council of Trent
4th–5th centuries
6th–9th centuries
12th–14th centuries
15th–16th centuries
19th–20th centuries
Catholicism portal

The Second Council of Nicaea is recognized as the last of the first seven ecumenical councils by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. In addition, it is also recognized as such by the Old Catholics, and others. Protestant opinions on it are varied.

It met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea; present-day İznik, Bursa, in Turkey), to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images),[1] which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.

Background

Further information: Byzantine Iconoclasm

The veneration of icons had been banned by Byzantine Emperor

iconoclastic tendencies were shared by Constantine's son, Leo IV. After the latter's early death, his widow, Irene of Athens
, as regent for her son, began its restoration for personal inclination and political considerations.

In 784 the imperial secretary

intercommunion with the other churches
should be reestablished; that is, that the images should be restored. However, a council, claiming to be ecumenical, had abolished the veneration of icons, so another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration.

Pope Adrian I was invited to participate, and gladly accepted, sending an archbishop and an abbot as his legates.

An icon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century, Novodevichy Convent, Moscow).

In 786, the council met in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. However, soldiers in collusion with the opposition entered the church, and broke up the assembly.[4] As a result, the government resorted to a stratagem. Under the pretext of a campaign, the iconoclastic bodyguard was sent away from the capital—disarmed and disbanded.

The council was again summoned to meet, this time in Nicaea, since Constantinople was still distrusted. The council assembled on 24 September 787 at the church of Hagia Sophia. It numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasius presided,[5] and seven sessions were held in Nicaea.[4]

Proceedings

Original Acta of the Council

  • First Session (24 September 787) – There was debate over whether bishops who had accepted iconoclasm when under iconoclast rule could remain in office.
  • Second Session (26 September 787) – Letters from
    Church Fathers;[1] and from hagiography.
  • Fifth Session (4 October 787) – A further florilegium was read out, "proving" that iconoclasm originated from pagans, Jews, Muslims, and heretics.
  • Sixth Session (7 October 787) – The definition of the pseudo-Seventh council
(754) and a long refutation of the same (probably by Tarasius) were read.
  • Seventh Session (13 October 787) – The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images.
    Iznik
    , Turkey.
    Hagia Sophia, İznik

    It was determined that

    As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of

    Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints
    and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone—for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.

    This definition of the proper religious veneration of images centers on the distinction between timētikē proskynēsis, meaning the "veneration of honour", and "alēthinē latreia", meaning "true adoration". The former is permitted to images in the same way as to other holy things, notably the cross and the gospel-book, while the latter, "latreia", is reserved for God alone. But the statement that follows, to the effect that the honor paid to the image passes over to its prototype implies on the contrary that there are not two different degrees of veneration, but a single veneration that is not idolatrous since it treats the image as a door or window through which the person praying to the image perceives and adores the heavenly personage who is depicted in it. This could not lead to a worship of images of the Godhead in Byzantium, since no attempt was made to represent Godhead in art. But a problem remains over the human nature of Christ, which is certainly represented in art and which at the same time shares fully in the adoration paid to Christ as God: it would be heretical to worship Christ's Godhead but only honour his humanity.
  • The so-called "Eighth Session" (23 October 787) held in Constantinople at the Magnaura Palace supposedly in the presence of the emperors Constantine IV and Irene. Erich Lamberz has proved that this "session" is a late ninth-century forgery (see Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 655–56). The purpose of the addition was to do justice to the role of the emperors at this ecumenical council as at its predecessors.

    • The twenty-two canons[6] drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened.

    The council also decreed that every altar should contain a relic, which remains the case in modern Catholic and Orthodox regulations (Canon VII), and made a number of decrees on clerical discipline, especially for monks when mixing with women.

    Acceptance by various Christian bodies

    The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to

    King of the Franks, supported the composition of the Libri Carolini in response, which repudiated the teachings of both the Council and the iconoclasts. A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[7] The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council is accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church
    .

    The council, or rather the final defeat of iconoclasm in 843, is celebrated in the

    Triumph of Orthodoxy" each year on the first Sunday of Great Lent, the fast that leads up to Pascha
    (Easter), and again on the Sunday closest to 11 October (the Sunday on or after 8 October). The former celebration commemorates the defeat of iconoclasm, while the latter commemorates the council itself.

    Many

    Theodulf of Orleans, which reacts negatively the council's acts. Calvin did not specifically engage the apologetic arguments of John of Damascus or Theodore the Studite, apparently because he was unaware of them.[citation needed
    ]

    Bishops of Dalmatia

    Particularly interesting that four Dalmatian bishops are among the signatories of the synod, whose cities were no longer under Byzantine rule.[9][10] These Dalmatian bishoprics had been dissolved earlier. So the question arises when were these bishoprics re- established in these medieval Dalmatia cities?[10][9]

    The four Dalmatian bishops who signed the synod, in order:

    • “Ioannes episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Salonentianae” (John of Salona-Split)
    • “Laurentius episcopus sanctae Absartianensis ecclesiae” (Lawrence of Osor)
    • “Ursus episcopus Avaritianensium ecclesiae” (Ursus of Rab)
    • “Ioannes episcopus Decateron” (John of Kotor)[10][9]

    This suggests that new bishoprics was founded or old (Early Christian) episcopal seats were re-established in this area.[10][9]

    Critical edition of the Greek text

    • Concilium universale Nicaenum Secundum, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ser. 2, vol. 3, in 3 parts, ed. Erich Lamberz, Berlin 2008-2016. Also includes the Latin translation by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

    Translations

    There are only a few translations of the above Acts in the modern languages:

    • English translation made in 1850 by an Anglican priest, John Mendham; with notes taken largely from the attack on the council in the Libri Carolini. The aim of the translation was to show how the Catholic veneration of images is based on superstition and forgery.
    • The Canons and excerpts of the Acts in
      The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, translated by Henry R. Percival and edited by Philip Schaff
      (1901).
    • Translation made by
      Kazan Theological Academy (published from 1873 to 1909) – a seriously corrupted translation of the Acts of the Councils into Russian.[11]
    • A relatively new Vatican's translation (2004) into Italian language. Publishers in Vatican mistakenly thought[12] that they made the first translation of the Acts into European languages.[13]
    • The new (2016) Russian version of the Acts of the Council is a revised version of the translation made by Kazan Theological Academy, specifying the cases of corruption by the Orthodox translators.[14] There are several dozens of such cases, some of them are critical.
    • Price, Richard, ed. (2018a). The acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Vol. 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
      ISBN 9781802071023
      .
    • Price, Richard, ed. (2018b). The acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Vol. 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
      ISBN 9781786941275
      .

    See also

    References

    1. ^ a b Gibbon, p. 1693
    2. ^ Council of Hieria, Canon 19, "If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!" http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754.asp
    3. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 388.
    4. ^ a b Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 178.
    5. ^ Gibbon, p. 1693.
    6. ^ "NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org.
    7. ^ Hussey 1986, pp. 49–50.
    8. ^ cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.11
    9. ^ a b c d Škegro, Ante. The Sarnian diocese (Sarniensis Ecclesia) (PDF).
    10. ^
      ISBN 978-1-138-22594-7
      .
    11. ^ See: http://www.knigafund.ru/books/12281/read Archived 2016-10-26 at the Wayback Machine
    12. ^ See: N. Tanner, "Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo, Tomi I–III, introduzione e traduzione di Pier Giorgio Di Domenico, saggio encomiastico di Crispino Valenziano", in "Gregorianum", N. 86/4, Rome, 2005, p. 928.
    13. ISBN 9788820976491
    14. ISBN 9785446908912
      .

    Sources

    Further reading

    There is no up-to-date English monograph on either the council or the iconoclast controversy in general. But see L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680 to 850: A History (Cambridge 2011).

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Council_of_Nicaea&oldid=1213624170"