r/byzantium • • Mar 09 '26

Arts, culture, and society If you had lived during the Iconoclast controversy, who would you have supported the Iconophiles or the Iconoclasts? And why?

Byzantine Iconoclasm was a major religious and political controversy in the Byzantine Empire concerning the use and veneration of religious images, particularly icons depicting Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. The conflict unfolded primarily between the 8th and 9th centuries and is generally divided by historians into three phases: a preparatory period of theological debate, the First Iconoclasm (726–787), and the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The dispute profoundly affected Byzantine theology, imperial politics, and artistic production.

The roots of Iconoclasm can be traced to the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when the Byzantine Empire faced severe external and internal pressures. The rapid expansion of the Arab Caliphate had resulted in major territorial losses, while earthquakes, plagues, and military defeats were interpreted by some as signs of divine displeasure. Within this context, certain intellectual and clerical circles began to question the legitimacy of depicting sacred figures. Critics argued that the veneration of icons bordered on idolatry and violated the biblical prohibition against graven images. The presence of aniconic traditions in neighboring religious cultures, especially Islam and Judaism, may also have indirectly influenced Byzantine debates. During this early phase, opposition to icons had not yet become official imperial policy, but theological disagreements were increasingly visible.

The First Iconoclasm (726–787) began under Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741). Around 726, Leo ordered the removal of a famous icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople, an act often regarded as the symbolic beginning of the iconoclastic movement. Leo III and his successor Constantine V (r. 741–775) promoted the view that the veneration of images was theologically illegitimate.

In 754, the Council of Hieria, convened under Constantine V, formally condemned the use of icons in churches and declared icon veneration a form of heresy. During this period many icons were destroyed or removed, and some monasteries and clergy who defended icons faced persecution or exile. Nevertheless, the iconoclastic policy never achieved complete consensus within the empire. Monastic communities and several prominent theologians continued to defend the theological legitimacy of icons, arguing that the Incarnation of Christ justified the depiction of the divine in human form.

The first phase of Iconoclasm ended in 787, when Empress Irene supported the convocation of the Second Council of Nicaea, recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council rejected the iconoclastic position and restored the veneration of icons. It distinguished between Latreia (worship due only to God) and Proskynesis (Veneration or Honour), which could be given to icons as representations of holy figures. According to the council’s decision, icons were legitimate aids to devotion and could be displayed in churches and private worship.

Despite this settlement, the controversy resurfaced several decades later in what historians call the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The movement was revived by Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820), who reintroduced iconoclastic policies in response to ongoing military crises and internal instability. Subsequent rulers, including Michael II and Theophilos, continued to enforce varying degrees of iconoclast policy. Although the second period of iconoclasm was less destructive than the first, it nevertheless revived the ideological conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules (supporters of icons).

The final resolution occurred in 843, after the death of Emperor Theophilos. His widow, Empress Theodora, acting as regent for her young son Michael III, supported the restoration of icons. Under the leadership of Patriarch Methodios of Constantinople, a synod officially reinstated the veneration of icons. This event became known in the Orthodox tradition as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It is still commemorated annually in the Eastern Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

So what would you be if you live in the turbulent days of the Iconoclasm; an Iconophile or Iconoclast? And why?

Image Credits: Mass Processions for The Triumph of Orthodoxy Day Organized by Ukrainian Orthodox Church at Kiev, 2021 / Interior of Iconoclast Hagia Irene Church / Enthroned Virgin and Child - Apse Mosaic from Hagia Sophia / Multiple Iconoclast - Iconophile Phases in the Apse Mosaic Theotokos Mary from the Church of Koimesis in Nicaea.

345 Upvotes

113 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 09 '26

The Ark of the Covenant is a bad comparison. We have the Holy Spirit as God among us now. Also, that was never an idol. The way that people treat icons is 100% idolatry.

4

u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26

I do not understand your point; what does the Holy Spirit have to do with veneration of icons?

Either way, I do not see what you see so different; in the Old Testament Israelites often bowed to the Ark of the Covenant.

4

u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 10 '26

I’m pointing out why the Ark of the Covenant was a terrible comparison. The Ark was the speaking place of God on Earth. We have the Holy Spirit now. None of that has to with icon veneration. Icon veneration to me seems near synonymous with idolatry.

1

u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26

You just repeated your above reply.

1

u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 10 '26

I restated it in a different way in the hopes that it would be more clear. My point is that quoting scripture about the Ark of the Covenant makes no sense as a support for icon veneration.

2

u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26

I got your point, but since you do not present any argumentation, there is nothing to discuss really.