At the so-called "Mock Synod" at Constantinople (AD 754), an iconoclastic council, we read the following condemnation of the veneration of images, something which would be dogmatized at the Second Council of Nicea in AD 787:
Wherefore we thought
it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error
of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the
holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind
of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and
incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What
avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts
that which should not be depicted--that is, with his polluted hands he tries to
fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the
mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and
man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his
foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead
which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus
he is guilty of a double blasphemy--the one in making an image of the Godhead,
and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same
blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because
they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the
Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine
nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse:
We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that
is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the
flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine
nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented
apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the
Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the
same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the
Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body,
and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the
body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also
his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then
in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools
venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as
the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they
separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a
personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person
into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which
has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an
image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and
mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body
of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the
Nestorians.
The only admissible
figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy
Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to
represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a
representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the
body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the
bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine
body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from
that which is common, sanctifies it.
The evil custom of
assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles
and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind them any prayer by which an
image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter.
If, however, some
say, we might be right in regard to the images of Christ, on account of the
mysterious union of the two natures, but it is not right for us to forbid also
the images of the altogether spotless and ever-glorious Mother of God, of the
prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who were mere men and did not consist of two
natures; we may reply, first of all: If those fall away, there is no longer
need of these. But we will also consider what may be said against these in
particular. Christianity has rejected the whole of heathenism, and so not
merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen worship of images. The Saints
live on eternally with God, although they have died. If anyone thinks to call
them back again to life by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes
himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the
Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is not
permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the
customs of demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great
glory, by common dead matter.
Moreover, we can
prove our view by Holy Scripture and the Fathers. In the former it is said:
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and
in truth;" and: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath;" on which account God spoke to the Israelites on the Mount, from
the midst of the fire, but showed them no image. Further: "They changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man,…and served the creature more than the Creator." (NPNF2 14:543-44)
