Podcast appearances and mentions of leo iv

Thank you for supporting my independent thought - how to support my work Podcast channel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/purple-psychology/id6446495392Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/purplepsychologyiBooks: http://books.apple.com/us/book/id6744105194What does it mean for us to have an American Pope? And why Leo IV? What does this mean for the relationships closest? I know I read this quote of Bell Hook's in https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/795426-ain-t-i-a-woman-black-women-and-feminismMary Robinson on the war on Terror :https://www.irishtimes.com/news/war-on-terror-hitting-global-human-rights-robinson-1.436116

Pope Benedict was the actual pope to follow Leo IV, not Pope Joan! In his episode, we discuss a dramatic and confusing antipapacy, why his Liber Pontificalis entry is often missing, complicated consequences of the Iconoclasm, and... astral dew. 

Pope Leo may have been a 'despiser of the self', but there are plenty of reasons for us to like him! In his episode, we discuss the fortification of Rome and  Leonine City just in time for the Battle of Ostia, some very important disobedient clerics, a surprise Rexy appearance, and Raphael dicks. 

The Battle of Ostia and the defense of Rome.

The Battle of Ostia and the defense of Rome.

Poo-face is dead, now his young son must take over and (cough cough) take up the mantle (cough). He will need determination and courage to tackle (cough cough) the issues of the (cough hack hack) day. Find out how he does! (Is... Is that blood? Oh. Oh dear.) Also, this week we recommend https://pontifacts.podbean.com for all your popey goodness. Check them out!

A worker of miracles, a battler of barbarians, and someone described as a man who lived to perfection the saying “pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on you.” This week it's Pope #103, St. Leo IV.    FOLLOW & SUPPORT THE PODCAST: patreon.com/mattsewell   LINKS The Popecast on Instagram/Twitter/Facebook – @thepopecast [BOOK] Church of Spies: The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler – AMAZON  

Leo IV. - Kriegsherr und Baumeister Wie ein eher unbekannter Papst in der turbulenten Zeit des IX. Jahrhunderts mit der Sarazenengefahr umging und wie er sich als Liturge und Baustellenaufseher hervortat erfahrt ihr hier!

He saw the Saracens attack Rome in 846; upon his ascension, to prevent its recurrence he fortified the city and its suburbs, building a wall around the Vatican... The post Pope Leo IV appeared first on Cradio.

Leo IV could have been a good emperor but didn't get the chance. Unfortunately his wife did!

When the weak, ineffectual emperor Leo IV died in 780, he left the empire divided and in the hands of an orphan from Athens; the beautiful and grasping Empress Irene. 17 years later she was crowned as sole ruler after murdering her own son to take his place. It was hardly an auspicious start, beset by enemies on every border, the empire was now facing its most serious internal threat; the terrible iconoclastic controversy. Successive emperors had neglected the frontiers to concentrate on the war against icons, and in the process had not only weakened the state, but had destroyed some of the finest works of art the Byzantine world ever produced. Even worse, an emperor had at last returned to the long vacant throne of the West, to challenge Byzantium's claim of universal temporal domination. If ever the empire had needed strong leadership, it was now. Join Lars Brownworth as he looks at the reign of Irene; the only woman to rule the empire, not as Queen or Regent, but as a King.

Bütsants 8.-9. saj. Leo IV lesk Irene. Karl Suur

Bütsants 8.-9. saj. Leo IV lesk Irene. Karl Suur

Bütsants 8.-9. saj. Leo IV lesk Irene. Karl Suur

Bütsants 8.-9. saj. Leo IV lesk Irene. Karl Suur

One of the most interesting moments in Church History comes in the conflict over the use of images in Worship. It's born of the reality that Christianity has its roots in Judaism but had vast appeal among pagan Gentiles.During the time of the Kings of Judah & Israel, Israel struggled with its call by God to abstain from idolatry. Indeed, a premier hallmark of religious revival under what are called the “Good Kings” was often marked by a systematic dismantling of idolatry across the land. King Josiah's campaign to eradicate idolatry and pagan high places after the reign of his grandfather Manasseh is a prime example. But ultimately, these revivals weren't able to stem the tide. Idols and high places went up as fast as they were torn down. So as warned by God, both Israel and Judah were carried away into captivity by foreign conquerors.Carted off to Babylon, Idolatry Central, the Jewish exiles came to loath idols as well as to lament the tendency of their souls to turn to them. Babylon seemed to be a kind of aversion therapy for the Jews. “You want idols? Okay, have them aplenty!” And there in Babylon Israel was seemingly cured of idolatry; they never struggled with it again. On the contrary, they returned from exile with an almost allergic reaction to anything that even hinted at idolatry. So much so, that Jews were regarded as strange by their pagan neighbors, not just that they believed in a single, All-Powerful God, but that they utterly refused to give Him any kind of imagery & physical representation. Some pagans wondered if in fact Jews were atheists, because of their fierce reduction of the gods & goddesses to a single deity Who refused to be represented by an image.And of course, the earliest Christians were Jews who understood their Faith, not as something new, but as something very old that had simply been moved along by God into the fulfillment He'd always pointed it toward. Jesus was THE fulfillment of what God had promised the First Jew = Abraham, all the way back at the beginning in Genesis 12. It was through Jesus all nations would be blessed. Fulfilling God's promise to Adam and Eve in Gen, 3, Jesus was the seed of the woman Who crushed satan's head and effected humanity's salvation.This Gospel quickly jumped the boundary between Jews & Gentiles. It turns out the Greco-Roman world of the 1st C was ripe for some much needed Good News. People were weary of the thread-bare of paganism with its pantheon of fickle gods and bitter goddesses. They were burned-out on the fatalism of Greek philosophy that locked them in a hopeless cage. The Gospel offered an entirely different way of looking at the world and life. It re-wrote peoples' idea of God and offered an intimate & eternal love relationship with Him that infused them with boundless hope and joy. It filled life with meaning and purpose.Once pagan Gentiles began coming to Faith in ever larger numbers, the Church had oit figure out what ot do with them. The NT book of Acts records an account of the Jewish leadership of the Church in Jerusalem wrestling with how to cope with all the Gentile converts. They didn't deal with the issue of images then, but they'd have to later. Because it was inevitable that image-hating Jews & image-loving Gentiles would come to a loggerheads over the role of images in the practice of the faith.Early on, Gentile converts to the Faith deferred to their elder Jewish brothers to define for them what to believe and how to conduct themselves. This included the use of images in worship. Pagans regarded opposition to the wor­ship of images as irreligious, and so the rumor began that Christians were atheists. But as more and more Gentiles came into the Faith and took on leadership of the Church, some of the old strictures fell by the wayside. From the 3rd to 7th Cs, a change in attitude toward imagery took place. In the 3rd C, the theologian Origen slammed the use of images worship. But by the 7th C images had become an indispensable part of religious life. The reasons and chronology for this sea change regarding images are obscured by a glaring lack of record. Like the transition form adult to infant baptism, it's something that took place without much controversy or debate, at least that we have record of.We don't became aware of the importance of images in worship until there was a major controversy over them. It's almost as though a significant portion of the Church woke up one day & said, “Wait. Where'd all these images come from and why are people worshipping them? This has to stop.” Now of course, that's way overstating it; but as far as the record in concerned, that's the way it appears. We don't really see much about the ubiquity of images in worship until there was a movement to banish them in the 8th & 9th Cs in what's called the Iconoclast Controversy. This controversy between image-haters and lovers stirred up fierce passion and is well documented. It concluded with the establishing of Eastern Orthodoxy as it's practiced today, where images in the form of icons play a central role in worship.With the arrival of Islam in the 7th C, the face of the Mediterranean World changed dramatically. In short order, vast regions that had looked to the Cross, now looked to the Crescent Moon. One time great centers of Christianity in Syria & Egypt became Muslim. But Islam's relentless march into Europe was stalled in 4 yr long siege of Constantinople and in Southern France by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. Until the 8th C, though Rome was the sentimental capital of the Roman Empire, the Pope it's theological center, the far more populous East was the de-facto center of Christianity. With Islam's conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, Christianity's center shifted Westward into Europe, leaving Constantinople an increasingly isolated island in a Muslim Sea.Deprived of its once vaunted status and vast resources  supplied by the East, the Church in Constantinople went into decline. It was unable to answer the challenge of the now dominant Islam that proved to be an effective adversary to the moribund Faith the Church had fallen to. Islam was nothing like the mish-mash of frayed paganism Christianity had contended with in its early Cs. Islam regarded Christianity as degenerate and polytheistic in much the same way Chris­tians had considered paganism. Church leaders realized they needed to turn things around. A new generation of theologians and leaders emerged to take on the challenge.Leo III came to Constantinople's throne in 717 during the 2nd Muslim siege. He attributed the Arab presence and pressure on the City to Divine displeasure. The solution was a thorough round of repentance; a systematic purification of both Church & State.Leo established the Isaurian Dynasty after a 22 year period of near anarchy in Constantinople that saw 6 different emperors seize the throne. The Isurians ruled for the rest of the 8th C, repeatedly rescuing the Capital & what was left of the Christian East from the on-going menace of the Arabs and a new threat by pagan Bulgars. Even more thoroughly than Justinian the Great had, Leo reformed the Law Code, seeking to harmonize it with the Christian Faith.When Leo III came to the throne in 717, the Muslims launched a major campaign to take Constantinople. In Mid-Summer, an Arab army laid siege round the walls on the land side. An Arab fleet arrived a month later to seal off the flow of supplies by water.  But the Arab Navy was hammered by strong storms and Imperial cutters using a new weapon called Greek fire. Dysentery, the perennial enemy of siege-forces, as well as other sickness, forced the Arabs to withdraw the next Summer. While the army was able to march away, nearly the entire Arab fleet was sunk by a fierce storm. The Christians attributed all this to divine intervention. With the people of Constantinople thankful toward God, Leo thought it a good time to launch a reform of the Church; especially in regard to something he assumed was obvious to all godly folk; the use of images in worship. Well, Leo couldn't have misread the attitudes of his public more.As I mentioned, the early church theologian Origen was vehemently opposed to the use of images in worship based on the clear reading of the Second Commandment. The little we know about the eventual use of images began with the inclusion of relics. In Acts 19:12 we read an interesting little story about how some of the Apostle Paul's clothing was used to effect healing. Based on that, a theology was derived that used the remains and possessions of saints as touchpoints of devotion. And of course, a relic needed to be kept somewhere, so shrines were built to house them. Then churches were built to house the shrines. Both church and shrine were decorated with images pointing to the relic and the saint the relic came from.But of course, the use of symbols and a simple iconography started very early in the Christian tradition. Who doesn't know today that the fish became a secret symbol Christians used to identify themselves to one another in the midst of persecution? The catacombs of Rome are rich with imagery depicting the faith of those interred there. The anchor, ship and a shepherd are all early images Christians used to mark their faith.A lingering reluctance from Judaism to cast Jesus in the form of a man saw Him instead depicted as the Lamb of God. It wasn't till the very end of the 7th C  that a Council in Constantinople decreed Christ should be portrayed in His human form RATHER than as a lamb or some other symbol.While both Jews & Gentile converts agreed God in His essence as deity ought not be represented by an image, Jesus Christ was God become man. Some argued that just as God became man, taking on human flesh so that people could see, hear, and touch Him, so it wasn't just permissible to make images representing Him, it was necessary! Spurring the production of these images were the “discovery” of manuscripts that supposedly gave a description of Jesus, enabling artists to create a portrait. Wild reports of these portraits' miraculous completion at the hands of an angel while the artist slept were heard. Such “not made by hands” images were then given created for effecting healings and miracles. When Constantinople was attacked by the Avars in 626, Patriarch Ser­gius had icons of Mary painted on the City's gates & walls for protection.At the dawn of the 8th C images were in wide use in the worship of the Eastern Church. The West used them primarily as instructional aids, but their coin as aids in worship was growing. But that's not to say their use hadn't been a point of debate, minor as it may have been. Beginning in the 5th C, there are a handful of protests by church leaders in both the East and West. In 599 Bishop Serenus of Marseille was appalled by the cult that had sprung up around the images in his diocese. He ordered their destruction. Pope Gregory I at the turn of the 7th C told him he was right to resisr the adoration of images but instead of destroying them ought to use them as aids in instruction the illiterate.Our first record of a government action against images was a decree, not by a Christian ruler, but by a Muslim. In 723, Caliph Yazid II ordered the destruction of all images, not just in churches but in houses as well. This ban was secured by a Palestinian Jew's promise such a command would yield long life to the Caliph.  A hollow promise since Yazid died the next year. That becomes a frequent charge made by Christians at that time; that Jews urged Muslim rulers to interfere with their worship as get back for the Cs Christians had troubled Jews.The Quran doesn't pro­hibit images per se; only when they're turned into objects of worship; AKA idols. The first caliphs decorated their palaces with mosaics in the Byzantine style and used Roman coins that often bore the effigy of an Emperor or Christ. It was during this time Arabs began to reject all images, not merely those used in worship.As far as Christian rulers, it was Leo III, following the successful breaking of the 2nd Siege by the Arabs, who installed reforms that moved to eradicate the use of images in worship. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was Germanus. He pushed back on the initial order but only tepidly. He really didn't want to take on the Emperor. Besides many of the local bishops of Asia Minor were all for a suppression of images. In 720 Leo ordered that all coins be minted bearing the head of his son and co-emperor Constantine V, rather than the traditional bust of Jesus. Later, a simple cross was used. Leo's zeal increased dramatically when a volcano erupted. He took that as a sign of God's anger at the lingering presence of idolatry.  Leo personally took a hand in demolishing a bronze image of Christ tradition had assigned to the agency of no one less than Constantine the Great.In 730, Leo replaced Patriarch Germanus, who'd been less than enthusiastic about Leo's war on religious imagery.  The Imperial Chancellor Anastasius was made the new Patriarch. In the mean­time, John of Damascus, the most eminent Orthodox theologian since the Cappadocian Fathers, penned a defense of images from his refuge in Arab-ruled Palestine.At this point in our story, we'll switch from referring to religious imagery as images to their more accurate term – icons. Since we talked about what an icon was in Season 1 we'll summarize by simply saying that an icon isn't considered by those who make them as being painted; they are written. Artists who produce them attend extensive training and there are set rules for their production. They are deemed to be a means by which God's grace flows to those who use them in worship. They aren't worshipped, per se, they're venerated as aids IN worship or aids TO worship.Those opposed to the use of icons are called iconoclasts; icon-breakers. Supporters of icons were called iconodules; icon-servants.The afore-mentioned Constantine V was named co-emperor by his father in 720. He reigned as sole Emperor, 741-75. He was even more opposed to icons than his father. A number of theological arguments were developed by iconoclasts, mostly relating to portrayals of Christ. They said that since His human nature can't be separated from His divine nature, any attempt to portray Him was an at­tempt to portray God, which is forbidden by the 2nd Commandment. A similar line of reasoning was used with icons of saints who'd been raised into the heaven.  Icons were labelled by the boogeyman of being Nestorian. The only safe image iconoclasts allowed was the Cross. Emperor Constantine himself wrote an iconoclast treatise which is lost to us but which was cited by others. He ar­gued that while Christ's human nature may indeed be represented by an image, his divine nature can't. So, all portrayals separate the natures and are therefore heretical. Constantine V's position is called by some historians, Christian Primitivism. He would have caused no problems in his thinking among Christians prior to the con­version of his namesake, Constantine the Great. He rejected the interces­sion of the saints, a practice unknown among early Christians.In 754 Constantine V held what he numbered as the Seventh Ecumenical Coun­cil—a distinction denied by both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Neither the pope nor the patriarchs of Alexandria, Anti­och, and Jerusalem, who by then were under Arab rule, attended. The patriarch­ate of Constantinople at the time was vacant. The Council lasted 7 months, and the record of its actions has been lost – all except its final decision regarding icons. The veneration of icons, that is, their use in worship was forbidden. So too was their destruction. A new iconoclast Patriarch was seated in Constantinople while the deposed Germanus, a Bishop of Cyprus, and John of Damascus were declared heretics.Constantine V didn't immediately treat iconodules as hated heretics. Threats from Islam obliged him to preserve internal peace for a time. But when the vast majority of monks became increasingly agitated iconodules, monasticism came under imperial scorn. In 761, 2 iconodule-monks were executed for speaking out against the Emperor. That action crossed a line in Constantine's mind that saw him then proceed to ramp up persecution of those calling for a reinstitution of icons.iThe Iconoclastic Controversy, as it is officially called, was the first period of persecution in Church history to be based on something other than a dispute concerning doctrinal fundamentals. Although to those caught up in it, it certainly seemed fundamental to them! Hey, when blood is being spilled, people tend to think it's pretty fundamental. Anything that trumps the urge to survival will do that. We're allowed the leisure of saying this was a controversy over non-essentials only because we're so far removed from its bite. For the first time, Christians executed Christians for religious reasons.When the main force of lingering iconodule support was found in monasteries and among monks, an Imperial military commander at Ephesus named Michael Lachanodracon decided to take matters into his own hands. He may have felt that he was only implementing what the Emperor wanted to but was restrained by politics from doing. In 770, he gathered all the monks and nuns he could find and ordered them to marry. Those who refused were blinded and exiled to Cyprus. He razed monasteries and those churches so filled with iconography it was easier to just level them. The military's participation in this may have been partly fueled by their frustration at being handed one defeat after another by the Muslims. But they  were also furious at the monasteries and monks  who drained much needed resources form the war effort and robbed the army of much needed man-power. As Lachanodracon assumed, Constantine V expressed his appreciation for his brutal and bloody campaign.When Constantine died in 775, the throne passed to his son Leo IV, The Khazar; so named because his mother was a Khazar princess named Irene. Which is a whole other fascinating tale. Influenced by his wife, also named Irene, who later played a gruesome role in Byzantine history, Leo abandoned the repressive iconoclast policies of his father. Leo named his 6 year old son Constantine VI co-emperor shortly after his own ascent. When he died only 5 yrs into his reign the 10 yr old became sole Emperor; except for that interesting mother of his who became the real power at court.Irene had already backed down the iconoclastic policy of the imperial gov­ernment during her husband's reign. With him out the way, she moved quickly to put an end to iconoclasm altogether. The iconoclastic patriarch Paul was forced to abdicate, allowing Irene's secretary, Tarasius to be elected to the post. A new Council was called in 786 to restore the veneration of images. It's called the 7th Ecumenical Council, even though that's what Constantine V had called his 32 yrs earlier. The new Council was opposed by large numbers of the military still beholden to Constantine V. Irene replaced iconoclast units with more loyal troops from Thrace and reconvened the council in Nicaea. The veneration of im­ages was declared orthodox; iconoclasts who recanted were forgiven & restored, despite the hostility of monks who wanted some serious pay-back. The Council managed to get around the charge of idolatry by saying the veneration shown images was to be understood as applying to the saint depicted, not to the image itself. Worship was reserved for God alone.When Constantine VI reached maturity, his power-hungry mom refused to step down. In the ensuing conflict, the ferocious icon­oclastic general Michael Lachanodracon took the son's part. Irene was able to resist at first, but when Asian troops threw in with Constantine he prevailed and was proclaimed sole ruler in 790.It seems Irene's apple didn't fall far from her tree in her son. He merged cowardice with cruelty, and lost the support of his followers. In  a shocking moment of scandal, he set aside his wife of 7 yrs to marry his mistress. That enflamed the hatred of the monks who went to Irene and gave her their support. So she was able to return and take the throne in August, 797. Constantine was blinded, a deformity that by Byzantine Law prohibited him from ever being ruler again.Talk about being a bad mom! Way to go Irene.Her cruelty may have done away with her son, but it provoked a coup that replaced her with Nicephorus I in 802. He died in battle 9 yrs later, to be succeeded by the inept Michael I Rangabe. Barely 2 yrs later Michael was deposed by another Leo, the V, who sought to restored the old Iconoclast policies of his namesake. He convened yet another council at Constantinople in 815, to once more do away with icons. But Leo V didn't have any popular support and was murdered by supporters of the next Emperor, Michael II. This guy was a moderate iconoclast,; that is, while advocating a theological position opposed to icons, he didn't use imperial force to make people stop their use. He hired an the out­standing iconoclastic scholar named John the Grammarian as tutor for his son and successor Theophilus, under whom iconoclasm enjoyed its last gasp. In 837, Tutor John was made Constantinople's Patriarch. An energetic repression of iconodules once again began, with a special focus on those pesky icon-loving monk.But by that time iconoclasm had lost its popular following and the movement ended with the death of Theophilus in 842. He was succeeded by his son Michael III under the regency of his widow, Theodora who immediately set about restoring the use of icons. John the Grammarian was deposed and in 843, a synod officially reinstalled the veneration of images.The brief revival of iconoclasm that ended with the so-called "triumph of orthodoxy" in March of 843 produced what we know today as Eastern Orthodoxy, the “Church of the Seven Councils.” From the perspective of Eastern churches, the Council of Nicaea in 787 was the 7th and last ecumenical council.  The councils Rome  convened and labeled as ecumenical the East regards only as regional synods. Later events would drive a wedge between the two churches, that up to this point had been one.

We've worked our way through 6 of what are known as the 7 Ecumenical Councils of Church History. We've examined the Councils and the Creeds they produced. Although, after the First Council in 325 at Nicaea, each subsequent Council claimed that all it was doing was refining the verbiage of the Nicaean Creed. Each claimed it was merely an extension of the ground-breaking work of that first august Council convened by the Emperor Constantine I.It seems fitting then that the last of the 7 Ecumenical Councils should come back to Nicaea 450 yrs later. But it's work had little to do with the Nicaean Creed.These 7 Councils are called Ecumenical because they are generally accepted by both the Western Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches as normative in defining doctrine. The Roman Church adds additional Councils and their creeds as definitive which the Eastern Church rejects as the Eastern Church recognizes its own councils and creeds Rome ignores. And of course the huge Nestorian Church in the East stopped honoring the councils with Ephesus.Before we get to the 7th Council, we need to talk a bit about a Council that was held 12 yrs after the Third Council of Constantinople we ended the last episode with.In 692, Emperor Justinian II convened yet another council in the Eastern capital to finish some of the work that had been omitted by both the 5th & 6th Councils, notably, some canons that needed addressing. For that reason, this Council is called the 5th-6th Council. But since that sounds silly, let's use Latin so it'll sound more scholarly = Voila! It's the Quinisext Council. It was attended by 215 only Eastern bishops.Most of the canon work that was done aimed at settling ritual differences and coming to a standard practice of discipline for clergy in different regions. Since the Council was attended exclusively by Eastern bishops, it was the Eastern practice what was approved, at the expense of those in the West.The Council condemned the custom of Armenian churches who used undiluted wine in Communion. They also banned clerical nepotism, and the atrocious practice of eating eggs and cheese on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent. Several canons seemed aimed at provoking hostility from Rome.While the Orthodox Church accepts the Quinisext Council as legit, Western Churches never accepted it as authoritative or in any sense ecumenical. How could it be when no Western bishop attended. Oh, there was a supposed papal legate in attendance; at least the record marks him there.But Rome says no such person ever existed! The Council made him up to make it appear the Pope's authority was included. The Venerable Bede called the Quinisext Council the “Reprobate Synod.”The Pope at the time of the Council was Sergius I. He refused to endorse the canons & was ordered arrested by the Emperor & carried to Constantinople. But the City of Ravenna's militia thwarted the troops attempt to seize him.Ah. Isn't all this just lovely stuff? Isn't it wonderful hearing about how loving and humble church leaders were? This is what happens when Church & State become aligned under the rule of frail, fallible human beings. This is what happens when those IN authority fail to abide under it.One of the most important products of the Quinisext Council was the official establishment of Pentarchy.Pentarchy was originally articulated in legislation laid out by Emperor Justinian I in the mid 6th C, then included in canon law in the Council which ranked the ecclesiastical sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in order of authority & pre-eminence in that order. Justinian linked the administrative authority of the Church to that of the State. Rome was regarded as first among equals. But by the time of the Quinisext Council, Constantinople was regarded as New Rome and had achieve parity with Rome in terms of ecclesiastical weight. At least, the Eastern Bishops thought so. Rome and the west, not so much. So they rejected the Council outright.While the Pentarchy was a technical reality due to Justinian's legislation, it had little weight in determining anything other than one more point for the East & West to argue over.And that brings us to the 7th Ecumenical Council – the Second Council of Nicaea, in 787.In a word, it met to deal with the use of icons.Since we dealt with the Iconoclast Controversy in Season 1, we'll summarize here.The veneration of icons was banned by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V. His actions were endorsed by the Council of Hieria in 754. Now, you know how people are. Whatever the ruler says, they all happily comply with, right? Especially when it comes to religious sensitivities and issues of conscience. Yeah – not so much.The iconodules, that is, the supporters of icons rallied and staged a protest that was nothing if not vehement. But the Emperor stuck to his guns and kept the iconoclast policy in place. He vigorously enforcement the ban & persecuted violators. His son, Leo IV continued his policy but died while still young. Leo's widow, Irene of Athens, then acted as regent and began a restoration of icon veneration.In 784, the imperial secretary Tarasius was appointed as the successor to Constantinople's Patriarch, Paul IV. Not wanting to take charge of a fragmented church, he consented to become Patriarch on the condition icons could once again be venerated. But since a Council claiming to be ecumenical had abolished icons, another council could be necessary to re- allow them.To make the Council genuinely ecumenical, the Eastern Church realized it HAD to include the Western Church and invited Pope Adrian I to participate. He accepted, but showed his authorization of the Council by sending legates as his reps.The Council met in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople in 786. When iconoclast elements of the military sought to break it up, the government devised a way to get rid of them. They mocked up a bogus campaign & sent the troops to go deal with it. Once they arrived at their destination, they were surrounded, disarmed, and disbanded.The Council was once again summoned to meet, but since the Capital was still torn by iconoclast factions, they chose to meet in nearby Nicaea. The Council met for their First Session on Sept 24, 787 with 350 bishops & their attendants. Patriarch Tarasius presided over 7 sessions that lasted through later October.The main work of the Council was to reinstall the veneration of icons in the worship of the Church.Both the Eastern & Western Churches endorsed the findings of the Council. The last time they'd agree on just about anything.

This episode is titled Icons.Those with a rough outline of history know we're coming up on that moment when the Eastern and Western branches of the Church split. The break wasn't some incidental accident that happened without a lot of preparation. Things had been going sour for a long time. One of the contributing factors was the Iconoclast Controversy that split the Byzantine church in the 8th and 9th Cs.While the Western Church went through monumental changes during the Middle Ages, the Eastern Church centered at Constantinople pretty much managed a holding pattern. It was the preservation of what they considered orthodoxy that moved Eastern Christians to view the Western Church as making dangerous and sometimes even heretical alterations to the Faith. The Eastern Church thought itself to now be alone in carrying the Faith of the Ecumenical Councils into the future. And for that reason, Constantinople backed away from its long-stated recognition that the Church at Rome was pre-eminent in Church affairs.Another factor contributing to the eventual sundering of East from West was the musical chairs played for the Western Emperor while in the East, the Emperor was far more stable. Remember that while the Western Roman Empire was effectively dead by the late 5th Century, the Eastern Empire continued to identify itself as Roman for another thousand years, though historians now refer to it as the Byzantine Empire.  At Constantinople, the Emperor was still the Roman Emperor, and like Constantine, the de-facto head of the Church. He was deemed by the Eastern Church as “the living image of Christ.”But that was about to experience a major re-model in the brueha between the iconoclasts and iconodules; terms we'll define a bit later.The most significant controversy to trouble the Byzantine church during the European Middle Ages was over the use of religious images known as icons. That's the way many modern historians regard what's called the Iconoclast Controversy – as a debate over the use of icons. But as usual, the issue went deeper. It arose over the question of what it meant when we say something is “holy”.The Church was divided over the question of what things were sufficiently sacred as to deserve worship. Priests were set apart by ordination; meaning they'd been consecrated to holy work. Church buildings were set apart by dedication; they were sacred. The martyrs were set apart by their deeds; that's why they were called “saints” meaning set-apart ones. And if martyrs were saints by virtue of giving their lives in death, what about the monks who gave their lives à yet still lived? Weren't they worthy of the same kind of honor?If all these people, places and things were holy, were they then worthy of special veneration?The holiness of the saints was endorsed and demonstrated by miracles, not just attributed to them while they lived, but also reported in connection with their tombs, relics; even images representing them. By the beginning of the 7th C, many cities had a local saint whose icons were revered as having special powers of intercession and protection. Notable examples were Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica, the Christ-icon of Edessa, and the miracle-working icon of Mary of Constantinople.From the 6th C, both Church and govern­ment encouraged religious devotion to monks and icons. Most Christians failed to distin­guish between the object or person and the spiritual reality they stood for. They fell into, what many regarded as the dreaded sin of idolatry. But before we rush to judgment, let's take a little time to understand how they slipped into something Scripture clearly bans.The use of images as help to religious devotion had strong precedent. In pagan Rome, the image of the Emperor was revered as if the Emperor himself were present. Even images of lesser imperial officials were occasionally used as stand-ins for those they represented. After emper­ors became Christians, the imperial image on coins, in court-houses, and in the most prominent places in the major cities continued to be an object of veneration and devotion. Constantine and his successors erected large statues of them­selves, the remains of which are on display today. It was Justinian I who broke with tradition and instead erected a huge icon of Christ over the main gate of the palace at Constantinople. During the following century icons of Christ and Mary came to replace the imperial icon in many settings. Eventually under Justinian II in the early 8th C, the icon of Christ began to appear on coins.While the use of images as accouterments to facilitate worship was generally accepted, there were those who considered such practice contrary to the Bible's clear prohibition of idolatry. They weren't against religious art per se; only it's elevation into what they considered the realm of worship.The debate over icons was really a kind of doctrinal epilogue to the Christological controversies of an earlier time. àWhat was proper in depicting Christ and other Biblical persons? Can Jesus even be represented, or is the attempt to a violation of His divinity? Does making an image of Jesus enforce his humanity at the expense of his deity?And when does art, used in the service of worship, to enhance or facilitate it, interfere with worship because the object or image becomes the focal point?Though these questions may seem distant to those who hail from a modern Evangelical background, they may be able to get in touch with the challenge the Eastern Church of the 8th and 9th Cs faced by remembering back a little way to when some notable worship leaders raised concern about the modern worship scene with its fostering an environment of overblown emotionalism. Some phrased it as the “Worship of worship,” rather than God. Musical productions and concerts became events people turned out by the thousands for as they sought a spiritual thrill, a worship-high. One well-known composer of modern worship wrote a song that aimed to expose this trend called “The Heart of Worship.”Though the medium was different, in some ways, the recent worship of worship concern was similar to the concern of the Byzantine iconoclasts. In the ancient Eastern Church, the medium was the art of images. The more recent controversy centered on the art of music.By the 7th C, the most significant form of Eastern devotion was the cult of holy icons. While I could give a more technical definition or description of icons, let me keep it simple and say they were highly-stylized paintings made on wood. The images were of Jesus, Mary, saints, and angels. While there were primitive images used by Christians all the way back in the 1st C, we'd have to say Christian art began in earnest in the 3rd C. It was used either decoratively or depicted scenes from the Bible as a way to instruct illiterate believers.As mentioned, since the people of the Eastern Empire were already accustomed to showing deference to portraits of the Emperor, it wasn't much of a stretch to apply this to pictures of what were considered holy people. Since imperial portraits were often set off by draperies, people prostrated before them, burned incense and lit candles beside them, and carried them in solemn processions, it seemed inevitable that icons of the saints would receive the same treatment. The first Christian images known to have been surrounded by such veneration occurred in the 5th C. The practice became widely popular in the 6th and 7th. The reserve church leaders like Epiphanius and Augustine had shown toward the use of images at the end of the 4th C disappeared.It's important to realize that when it comes to icons and their use, there were really two tracks. One track was the way theologians justified or condemned them. The second track was that of the common people who had little interest in the fine points of theology involved in their use. The iconoclasts framed the issue from Track 2. They were skeptical of the illiterate masses being able to make a distinction between simply using an icon as a means to worship of what the image represented, and actual worship of the image itself. What seemed to prove their point was when some of these icons and religious relics were attributed with special powers to effect healing and work wonders.Pro-icon Church leaders maintained a misunderstanding of icons ought not prohibit their use. That would err into mere pragmatism.Emperor Leo III launched an attack on the use of icons in the first half of the 8th C. He was motivated by a concern the Church was engaging in the forbidden practice of idolatry, the very thing that had coast ancient Israel so much trouble. Perhaps the Eastern Empire's humiliating losses over the previous century, as well as a terrible earthquake early in Leo's reign, were evidence of divine judgment. If so, Leo was concerned the Empire would awaken to their peril, repent and amend their ways.Of course, Leo didn't come up with this on his own or out of the blue. There were many among the clergy and common people who questioned the use of icons as objects of religious devotion. But now with the Emperor's backing, this group of Iconoclasts, as they were called, became more vocal. Antagon­ism toward the use of icons grew, especially along the eastern frontier that bordered Muslims lands. Muslims had long called Christians idolaters for their use of religious images. Leo grew up in that region and had served as governor of western Asia Minor among several iconoclast bishops.The word iconoclast means a breaker or destroyer of icons because eventually, that's what the Iconoclasts will do; smash, break and burn the icons.After successfully repulsing the Muslim armies in their 2nd attack on Constantinople in 717, Emperor Leo III openly declared his opposition to icons for the 1st time. He ordered the icon of Christ over the Imperial Gate to be replaced with a cross. In spite of wide-spread rioting, in 730 Leo called for the removal and destruction of all religious icons in public places and churches.  The iconodules, as supporters of icons were called, were perse­cuted.In Rome, Pope Gregory III condemned the destruction of icons. The Emperor retaliated by removing Sicily, southern Italy and the entire western part of the Balkans and Greece from Rome's ecclesiastical oversight, placing them under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was this, as much as anything, that moved the Pope to seek the support and protection of the Franks.Leo's son Constantine V not only continued his father's iconoclastic policy, he furthered it. He convened a council in 754 at the imperial palace at Hiereia, a suburb of Constantinople. The iconoclasts regarded it as the 7th Ecumenical Council, though it was only the Patriarchate of Constantinople that attended.Both iconoclasts and iconodules agreed that the divine in Jesus Christ could not be represented in pictures, but Jesus had 2 natures. The iconoclasts argued that to represent the human nature was to lapse into the dreaded Nestorianism but to represent both natures was to go against their distinction, which was the error of Monophysitism, and made an image of deity.The iconodules replied that not to represent Jesus Christ was Monophysitism.Note how these arguments illustrate the practice of debating new issues in terms of already condemned errors.Against pictures of Mary and the saints, the iconoclasts reasoned that one cannot depict their virtues, so pictures were at best a vanity unworthy of the memory of the person represented. “Surely,” they said, “Mary and the saints would not WANT such images made!”Other arguments by the iconoclasts were that the only true image of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist.Supporters of icons used arguments that were most effectively articulated by John of Damascus, an Arab Christian who wrote in Greek. John was a monk at the monastery of St. Saba in Palestine where he became a priest and devoted himself to study of the Scripture and literary work. Being outside the realm of Byzantine control, he was safe from retaliation by the Emperor and iconoclastic officials.John of Damascus was the most systematic and comprehensive theologian in the Greek church since Origen. His most important work is the Fountain of Knowledge, part three of which, titled On the Orthodox Faith, gives an excellent summary of the teaching of the Greek Fathers on the principal Christian doctrines. He also produced homilies, hymns, and a commentary on the NT letters of Paul. John of Damascus's Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images took a fourfold approach to the issue.1st he said, it's simultaneously impossible and impious to picture God, Who is pure spirit. Jesus Christ, Mary, saints, and angels on the other hand, who've appeared to human beings may be depicted. The Bible forbids idols alone.2nd, it's permissible to make images. The Old Testament prohibition of images was not absolute, for some images were commanded to be made; take for instance the cherubim over the mercy seat and other adornments of the temple. John said that we're not under the strictures of the Old Covenant now. In fact, the incarnation of God IN Christ prompts us to make the invisible, visible. John set the incarnation at the center of his defense of icons, elevating the debate from a question only of practices of piety to a matter of theological orthodoxy. Since human beings are created with body and soul, the physical senses are important in human knowledge of the divine. There are images everywhere— human beings are images of God. The tradition of the Church allows images, and this suffices even without Scriptural warrant, he argued.3rd, it's lawful to venerate icons and images because matter isn't evil. There are different kinds of worship: true worship belongs to God alone, but honor may be given to others.4th, there are advantages to images and their veneration. They teach and recall divine gifts, nourish piety, and become channels of grace.John of Damascus is regarded by the Orthodox Church as the last of the great teachers of the early church, men universally referred to as the “Church Fathers.”Despite his arguments, Iconoclast emperors drove iconodules from positions of power and began vigorous persecution. Many works of art in church buildings from before the 8th C were destroyed. Constantine V took strong measures against monks, the chief spokesmen for images, secularizing their property and forcing them to marry nuns. Many of them fled to the West.The Popes watched all of this with interest and came in on the side of the iconodules. Some of the best formulations of the independence of the Church, arguing that the emperor was not a teacher of the church, were made in their letters.In the end, the iconoclasts sealed their defeat by refusing to give to pictures of Jesus the reverence they gave pictures of the Emperor. The reaction against iconoclasm finally set in after Constantine V.Constantine V's son and successor, Leo IV, was not an energetic iconoclast as his father and grandfather. His widow Irene, regent for their son Constantine VI, over­turned the dynasty's iconoclastic policy. At her bidding the Council of Nicaea in 787 and condemned the Iconoclasts, affirming the theological position taken by John of Damascus.They found, “The venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials . . . should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith that pertains alone to the divine nature”But that wasn't the end of iconoclasm. An Iconoclast block developed in the profes­sional military as a reaction to a series of military disasters, diplomatic humiliations, and economic problems the Empire experienced in the quarter-century after the 787 Nicaean Council. They interpreted all these set-backs as the judgment of God for the Empire's return to idolatry.Finally, Emperor Leo V decided that Iconoclasm should again become the official policy of his government. A synod of church leaders in 815 reaffirmed the position taken by the anti-icon synod of 754—except that they no longer regarded the icons as idols.With Leo V's death, active persecution of the pro-icon party declined for 17 years before bursting out again in 837 under the leadership of Patriarch John Grammaticus. Under his influence, Emperor Theophilus decreed exile or capital punishment for all who openly supported the use of icons.Theodora, the widow of Theophilus and regent for their son Michael III, decided he ought to abandon the iconoclastic policy to retain the widest support for his rule. A synod early in 843 condemned all iconoclasts, deposed the iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus, and confirmed the decrees of the 7th Council.In today's Eastern Orthodox churches, paintings and mosaics frequently fill spaces on ceilings and walls. A screen or low partition called the iconostasis stretches across the front of the church, between the congregation and the altar area, for the purpose of displaying all the special icons pertaining to the liturgy and holy days.