Byzantine Iconoclasm
The Byzantine Iconoclasm was a time of passionate theological debate in the Orthodox-Catholic Church and the Byzantine imperial family during the 8th and 9th century, which was about the proper use and veneration of icons. The two parties were called iconoclasts ( icon destroyer ) and Ikonodulen ( icon worshipers ).
The reasons that led to the Byzantine iconoclasm, is disputed to this day, with various theories are discussed - from Islamic influence on the commandment "Thou shalt not God's image ( directory) make " to personal motives Byzantine emperor. Any assessment of the iconoclastic controversy is always complicated by the fact that the fonts pictures of enemy authors were after the victory of Ikonodulen destroyed by this, so that we almost only representations are obtained as the latter sources. Modern research has therefore revised many judgments of the earlier research.
The first phase of iconoclasm
In the earlier research was Emperor Leo III. ( 717-741 ) is considered as a convinced iconoclast, starting from the traditional image- friendly sources. He was possibly influenced by his Syrian origin of Oriental ideas; possibly Leo was of the opinion that it was impossible to capture the " divine nature " in pictures. 726 (according to other considerations 730) he shall, after a terrible earthquake had wreaked havoc in the Aegean ( by the eruption of Santorini the sky was several days obscured ), in a demonstrative act of the great golden icon of Christ have taken off at the Chalke gate of his imperial palace, which allegedly led to an uproar in the first population. 730 Leo should have prohibited the veneration of icons of Jesus, Mary and the saints, and allegedly ordered the destruction of these images.
However, all such sources are very problematic; in the Latin sources ( Liber Pontificalis ) are later interpolations, while the surviving Byzantine ( pictures friendly ) sources were written some time has elapsed. It is therefore unclear what actions Leo has actually taken. Due to continued good relations with the papacy and the fact that Leo obviously found support for a large part of the eastern population, the army and parts of the clergy for its general policy, the picture display friendly is now regarded very skeptically. It no reliable evidence that there has been an image or hostile edict that Leo has officially and so vehemently opposed the icons. The ikonodul colored sources distort the view apparently largely because occupy other reports that 727 icons still open could be shown in Constantinople Opel. Leo has therefore arranged probably no systematic removal of images and its politics seems to be also encountered no serious resistance.
It is clear, however, that of Leo the cross was preferred as a symbol, ie, a symbol that was acceptable to all Christians without difficulty. Leo was able to this policy if he has since operated systematically to preach because of his personal popularity and his military triumphs - he had purchased the goodwill of Constantinople by the victory over the besieging army of the Umayyad caliph 717-718. The reports of the professing Ikonodulen Germanos interpret even suggest that the conflict around the veneration of icons was not initiated by the imperial side. It may be some criticism of the icons have been, but it was under Leo III. apparently no outright iconoclasm instead.
Leo's son Constantine V ( 741-775 ) was also considered for a long time as a sharp iconoclasts, but this is given way in recent research a differentiated approach. Constantine was obviously not a supporter of image-worship and wanted to curb this, but many of the allegations made against him in the sources are problematic and often more polemic. Whether it really came to bloody persecutions of images admirers in Constantine's reign, is not safe and very questionable as us, as already mentioned above, almost only sources from the perspective of Ikonodulen are obtained. On the 754, convened the Council of Hieria on which condemned the worship of images, as well as John of Damascus and Germanus of Constantinople excommunicated Opel, followed not too drastic measures as would have been expected. The actual procedure of Constantine was in matters of religious policy apparently less hard and also did not get up often in conjunction with the iconoclastic controversy, as it was often assumed due to the tendentious, pictures friendly tradition.
In fact, several clergymen supported the Emperor's policy. Evidence of a fleeing persecution because of iconoclasm are very poor for this time. It is more likely that Constantine partly crackdown mainly to his political opponents aimed, however, were transfigured in retrospect to martyrs of the veneration of images. Rather, the Emperor against opposition groups and conspirators seem to have proceeded; a brief and very limited prosecution of some monks probably took place for these reasons, and was associated later with the religious policy of the emperor. Likewise, monks appear as advisor to the Emperor, especially since it under these had been quite a number who opposed the worship of images. That there was not only a negative memory of this very successful military emperor, prove later references to the iconoclastic emperors that the stabilization of the borders had succeeded - something that the shortly following " ikonodulen " failed first emperor.
The successor of Constantine, Leo IV ( 775-780 ), was also an opponent of the worship of images, but moderate in the implementation. His wife Irene of Athens was one of the Ikonodulen and later sources signposted Leo tendentious quite negative to illustrate such a contrast to the subsequent images friendly time.
The second Council of Nicaea
After the death of Leo Irene of Athens was regent for her infant son Constantine VI. She finished the first phase of iconoclasm were convened by the Second Council of Nicaea 787, where the veneration of icons was considered allowed, but their worship was expressly prohibited. They justified this with the doctrine of the incarnation, as John of Damascus had formulated: Because God in Jesus Christ became flesh, assumed a concrete, physical, human form, a physical representation is possible. The Saints embody each in their own way the Holy Spirit. Christ and the saints can now be depicted - as opposed to the second commandment, which was before the incarnation of Jesus Christ. However, it was also decided that all the icons are to be provided with markings to prevent a spin-off of the veneration of the icon as an object, without regard to the depicted real figure. The pope in Rome, where the images of the saints had never been seriously questioned, stood behind these decisions. In the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne, however, called the decisions that had been misinterpreted by inaccurate and erroneous translation as a commandment of image worship, contradiction forth. This was raised in the Capitulare contra synodum, detail due to the Libri Carolini and formulated at the Synod of Frankfurt with regard to the papal attitude in a weakened form. He eventually got even at the Synod of Paris 825, on the one practiced sharply criticized this decision Pope Hadrian I., an issue once again.
The second Council of Nicaea is officially the seventh ecumenical council of the Catholic and Orthodox Church; in Protestantism ranging views on the council from total rejection to recognition under reserve.
The veneration of icons was also permitted during the reign of the successor of the Empress Irene, Nicephorus I ( 802-811 ), and two brief reigns after him.
The second phase of iconoclasm
Emperor Leo V ( 813-820 ) initiated a second phase of 815 images a dispute, presumably due to the memory of the military successes of the iconoclastic emperors who were not repeated by the ikonodulen emperors. This phase was probably out at times quite sharp. He seems to have been conducted with greater hardness and in the provinces, unlike in the first phase of iconoclasm, who had only affected a minority ( see above). Several church people seem to support the new imperial policy. Under Leo's successors Michael II and his son Theophilos the iconoclastic controversy has continued. However, in the first place was the public commitment to the imperial politics of meaning; there is evidence that was quite apart from punishments and private worship was hardly disturbed, as long as this was not done in public. The example of the self-confessed admirer icon Methodius, who was a close confidant of Emperor Theophilos, shows that there was no complete suppression of the images admirer. The Iconoclastic Controversy was under Michael III. completed in the year 843.
Restoration of image-worship
After Theophilus ' death, his wife Theodora took over the government for the underage heir, Michael III. As Irene of Athens 50 years before her, Theodora mobilized the Ikonodulen 843 and ordered the restoration of the icons to. To overpower the iconoclasm finally, they also ordered the persecution and extermination of the Paulicians. From Evangelical side is now in these operations, a enforcing the worship of images by monks, against the common people, seen. The situation is by no means so clear.
Since then, the decree of 843 is celebrated annually on the first Sunday of Lent in the Orthodox Church as the Feast of Orthodoxy.
Theological arguments
On the side of Pictures Friends has been argued by John of Damascus, the sight of the pictures 'm adding to salvation, because the image always have my share on the nature of the archetype; a picture of Christ is this understanding not only a representation of how Christ looked like, but the image has a share in the being of Christ.
The pictures opponents, especially Constantine V, turned the argument around: if the image is to represent Christ, then it could not represent his divine nature, because it can not be seen and not painted. So if it is not possible to represent the divine nature of Christ, are the images of human nature is - that, however, the images opponent, was the heresy of Nestorius, who also wanted to separate God and man. One should God and man in Christ is not separate, and since you can not represent God, there can be no images of Christ.
Konstantin V. argued with Plato, that the image is always the inverse image of the same substance. The only image of God is the Son, because he is the father of the same substance, because the divine nature is like the father. Constantine understood the Eucharist as the image of Christ. That is until today the understanding images in the Orthodox Church: The Eucharist is the image of Christ, and therefore it is really Christ.
The resulting images devoted piety, because the picture share the essence of the archetype has and the Illustrated is present, called on the side of the images opponent the charge of idolatry forth. The worship of images had to be rejected because of the pictures lifeless matter, wood and colors would be worshiped. Here indeed, is where the difference between the worship that only God himself heard ( latreia ) and the reverence that one can show images over ( proskynesis ). Images one should not worship, but one should worship them.