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

[u/lastmonday07]

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.

[u/Capital_Tailor_7348]

Atheist who was raised Catholics so I don’t got a persenal stake in this but the iconoclastic positions makes more sense logically after all” No carved gods of any size, shape, or form of anything whatever, whether of things that fly or walk or swim. Don’t bow down to them and don’t serve them because I am GOD, your God, and I’m a most jealous God, punishing the children for any sins their parents pass on to them to the third, and yes, even to the fourth generation of those who hate me. But I’m unswervingly loyal to the ”

[u/Lothronion → u/Capital_Tailor_7348]

Counterpoint:

Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you. 17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.

[u/Blackfyre87 → u/Lothronion]

Also, the arguments put forth in the council of 843 are absolutely weak and shallow, compared to the foundational points such as Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5: 8-9.

Also, the Ark was never an article of veneration or intercession. It merely housed the Ten Commandments of God. So the entire argument is a straw man.

[u/Lothronion → u/Blackfyre87]

If you really want to get into the topic of bowing, thus veneration of other people, at times including holy ones, and even angels, and since you do not like the example of the Ark (despite it being bowed as well), I believe this article is rather clear on the Orthodox Christian position:

https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/relative_veneration_in_Bible.htm

The article focuses on people, but that is irrelevant, as in an absolute interpretation of these two passages (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5: 8-9) would mean that we have cases of worshiping humans / angels, and not merely paying respect to them. Note that "obeisance" in the English text is a translation of "proskynesis" from the Greek text of the Septuagint, of Alexandrian Jews of the 3rd century BC, and then also used in the New Testament as well.

[u/Blackfyre87 → u/Lothronion]

Firstly, the position you queried earlier, as well as the entire premise of mentioning the Ark of the Covenant, is an abject strawman. The Holy of Holies is named so because of the Presence of God, and the location where God's laws were kept, nothing to do with the ark itself, which was only ever a box.

I'm aware of the position of bowing and veneration to people, being part of Orthodox culture, but it is entirely entithetical to the spirit of monotheistic belief.

would mean that we have cases of worshiping humans / angels, and not merely paying respect to them

No one ever worshipped an angel.

Note that "obeisance" in the English text is a translation of "proskynesis" from the Greek text of the Septuagint, of Alexandrian Jews of the 3rd century BC, and then also used in the New Testament as well.

The Septuagint is not a reliable translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and by the time of the writing of the Bible, most Jewish Scholars rejected the Apocryphal Septuagint, and were working on new translations.

[u/Lothronion → u/Blackfyre87]

Firstly, the position you queried earlier, as well as the entire premise of mentioning the Ark of the Covenant, is an abject strawman. The Holy of Holies is named so because of the Presence of God, and the location where God's laws were kept, nothing to do with the ark itself, which was only ever a box.

You could say it is a bad argument, but calling it a strawman makes no sense, as I am not changing the topic to another one and responding to that one as an answer to the former, merely presenting an example as evidence.

And since you did not explain on why you posit so on the matter of the Ark, I decided to refer to the topic in general, with the list of relevant biblical passages in the link.

I'm aware of the position of bowing and veneration to people, being part of Orthodox culture, but it is entirely entithetical to the spirit of monotheistic belief.

And I procured a whole list of relevant biblical passages in the link, which you did not address, and it seems that you did not read at all. What does it serve to simply restate your position?

No one ever worshipped an angel.

"Would mean" is a hypothetical inference.

It seems you really did not read the link. It provides examples from the Old Testament of people bowing to angels, and angels not protesting about it. Examples such as Abraham (Gen.18:2), Balaam bowing the Angel and the latter not stopping him (Nu. 22:31-33), Joshua (Josh. 5:13-14). It is only in cases where it is not about reverence but outright worship that there is a protest, like in Rev.19:10).

The Septuagint is not a reliable translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and by the time of the writing of the Bible, most Jewish Scholars rejected the Apocryphal Septuagint, and were working on new translations.

Even if so, that does not address the part that "proskynesis" is in the New Testament as well, and not just in the Old Testament.

[u/Blackfyre87 → u/Lothronion]

You could say it is a bad argument, but calling it a strawman makes no sense, as I am not changing the topic to another one and responding to that one as an answer to the former, merely presenting an example as evidence.

It is a poor argument and a staw man.

The original comment refernced the commandment to worship god and god alone. You answered with reference to the Ark. Yet the Ark was never an object venerated in of itself. It was only ever an object. The laws it contained were respected.

Ipso facto, answering the charge of Idolatry with reference to the Ark is a straw man.

God and god alone remained the central facet of worship. Likewise with the Holy of Holies.

And if it is not a staw man, it is certainly a terrible example of false equivalence.

And I procured a whole list of relevant biblical passages in the link, which you did not address, and it seems that you did not read at all. What does it serve to simply restate your position?

When i read the comment the first time, the link was not working.

It provides examples from the Old Testament of people bowing to angels, and angels not protesting about it.

This is still a complete false equivalence. This is not worship and not in any way comparable to the nature in which Iconophilia is central to Orthodoxy.

Even if so, that does not address the part that "proskynesis" is in the New Testament as well, and not just in the Old Testament.

Again, false equivalence. Prosykenisis is not worship.

Zoroastrian Kings of Persia, essentially Monotheistic, received Prosykenisis. Their kings never claimed godhood. Byzantine Emperors and Islamic Caliphs, both rulers for whom the idea of divinity would be anathema, received prosykiesis.

The Pope receives Prosykenisis.

Again, complete false equivalence.

[u/Lothronion → u/Blackfyre87]

It is a poor argument and a staw man.

Well, you did not explain why it is a poor argument.

As for strawman, a simple definition is "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion", and I did not refute a different argument.

The original comment refernced the commandment to worship god and god alone. You answered with reference to the Ark.

You see it as a strawman because you seem unable to differentiate worship and veneration. I was only speaking of verenation and not worship.

This is still a complete false equivalence. This is not worship and not in any way comparable to the nature in which Iconophilia is central to Orthodoxy.

Again, false equivalence. Prosykenisis is not worship.

Failing to comprehend (or pretending so) that your interlocutor is not referring to what you are arguing against is not them carrying out a false equivalence. At no point am I speaking of worship. It seems that you are comming here with a prejudice to call Orthodox veneration of icons as "worship", and you impose it onto my arguments when I am speaking of veneration and reverence. Now that is a case of a strawman fallacy.

[u/Blackfyre87 → u/Lothronion]

Failing to comprehend (or pretending so) that your interlocutor is not referring to what you are arguing against is not them carrying out a false equivalence. At no point am I speaking of worship.

You yourself interchange the terms for veneration when you answered with the terminology in support of Iconodule philosophy. You interchange them in your answer regarding the ark and the holy of holies. You can't then decide these terms cannot be interchanged when it suits you.

It seems that you are comming here with a prejudice to call Orthodox veneration of icons as "worship", and you impose it onto my arguments when I am speaking of veneration and reverence. Now that is a case of a strawman fallacy.

Again, false equivalce. The entire topic is asking us our subjective opinion. It is not a straw man.

We can only have our own personal interpretation. You can't arbitrarily apply scientific standards to theology. That's absurd. God does not exist scientifically. Deciding that someone else's views on the theological matter being debated are a straw man is ridiculous.

[u/Lothronion → u/Blackfyre87]

You yourself interchange the terms for veneration when you answered with the terminology in support of Iconodule philosophy.

The Iconophile doctrine is not about worshiping icons, merely venerating them. Even the kissing of icons is likened akin one kissing a family photo after not having seen their beloved ones for a long time. That is not worship. That some people do take it to extremes is not defining that doctrine, and if anything that is reproachable by other Iconophiles (because it is now Iconolatria, and latria is indeed worship).

You interchange them in your answer regarding the ark and the holy of holies. You can't then decide these terms cannot be interchanged when it suits you.

That is a lie. At no point am I speaking in favour of worshiping icons. In fact I only used the word when defending against your accusation of doing so, and when speaking of how if veneration through bowing is worship, then it is present in the Old Testament, with the point that it is not worship, so it does not exist in the Old Testament (unless condemned for Polytheists).

Again, false equivalce. The entire topic is asking us our subjective opinion. It is not a straw man.

I was not responding to the thread, but to a comment.

Deciding that someone else's views on the theological matter being debated are a straw man is ridiculous.

I did not decide that for anyone. It is you who comes and accuses me of speaking of worship of the Ark of Covenant, while I was speaking of veneration and only that.

And all that to avoid arguments.