H
Hesychios
Guest
Which Pope?
The iconoclast heresy won twice, and twice it was put down by Orthodox women and Orthodox bishops in the heart of the empire.
- Status
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
This could get ugly…
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
And the reality is, just like Arianism, the West was still battling iconoclasm centuries after it had be eradicated in the East.
M
Monica4316
Guest
Here is an article about iconoclasm.
newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm
The pope at that time was Gregory II (713-31). Even before he had received the appeal of Germanus a letter came from the emperor commanding him to accept the edict, destroy images at Rome, and summon a general council to forbid their use. Gregory answered, in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand it. He describes the lawful use of, and reverence paid to, pictures by Christians. He blames the emperor’s interference in ecclesiastical matters and his persecution of image-worshippers. A council is not wanted; all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of the Church. As for Leo’s threat that he will come to Rome, break the statue of St. Peter (apparently the famous bronze statue in St. Peter’s), and take the pope prisoner, Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now abhorrent to all Christians was Constans’s persecution of Martin I. He also says that all people in the West detest the emperor’s action and will never consent to destroy their images at his command (Greg. II, “Ep. I ad Leonem”). The emperor answered, continuing his argument by saying that no general council had yet said a word in favour of images that he himself is emperor and priest (basileus kai lereus) in one and therefore has the right to make decrees about such matters. Gregory writes back regretting that Leo does not yet see the error of his ways. As for the former general Councils, they did not pretend to discuss every point of the faith; it was unnecessary in those days to defend what no one attacked. The title Emperor and Priest had been conceded as a compliment to some sovereigns because of their zeal in defending the very faith that Leo now attacked. The pope declares himself determined to withstand the emperor’s tyranny at any cost, though he has no defence but to pray that Christ will send a demon to torture the emperor’s body that his soul be saved, according to 1 Corinthians 5:5.
Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople. But George when he arrived, was afraid to present them, and came back without having accomplished his mission. He was sent a second time on the same errand, but was arrested and imprisoned in Sicily by the imperial governor. The emperor now proceeded with his policy of enlarging and strengthening his own patriarchate at Constantinople. He conceived the idea of making it as great as all the empire over which he still actually ruled. Isauria, Leo’s birthplace, was taken from Antioch by an imperial edict and added to the Byzantine patriarchate, increasing it by the Metropolis, Seleucia, and about twenty other sees. Leo further pretended to withdraw Illyricum from the Roman patriarchate and to add it to that of Constantinople, and confiscated all the property of the Roman See on which he could lay his hands, in Sicily and Southern Italy. This naturally increased the enmity between Eastern and Western Christendom. In 731 Gregory III held a synod of ninety-three bishops at St. Peter’s in which all persons who broke, defiled, or took images of Christ, of His Mother, the Apostles or other saints were declared excommunicate. Another legate, Constantine, was sent with a copy of the decree and of its application to the emperor, but was again arrested and imprisoned in Sicily. Leo then sent a fleet to Italy to punish the pope; but it was wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while the Moslems continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.
Of course both Eastern and Western Christians did a lot to fight iconoclasm. But it’s interesting to note that all the Popes of the time opposed iconoclasm and fought it.
newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm
The pope at that time was Gregory II (713-31). Even before he had received the appeal of Germanus a letter came from the emperor commanding him to accept the edict, destroy images at Rome, and summon a general council to forbid their use. Gregory answered, in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand it. He describes the lawful use of, and reverence paid to, pictures by Christians. He blames the emperor’s interference in ecclesiastical matters and his persecution of image-worshippers. A council is not wanted; all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of the Church. As for Leo’s threat that he will come to Rome, break the statue of St. Peter (apparently the famous bronze statue in St. Peter’s), and take the pope prisoner, Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now abhorrent to all Christians was Constans’s persecution of Martin I. He also says that all people in the West detest the emperor’s action and will never consent to destroy their images at his command (Greg. II, “Ep. I ad Leonem”). The emperor answered, continuing his argument by saying that no general council had yet said a word in favour of images that he himself is emperor and priest (basileus kai lereus) in one and therefore has the right to make decrees about such matters. Gregory writes back regretting that Leo does not yet see the error of his ways. As for the former general Councils, they did not pretend to discuss every point of the faith; it was unnecessary in those days to defend what no one attacked. The title Emperor and Priest had been conceded as a compliment to some sovereigns because of their zeal in defending the very faith that Leo now attacked. The pope declares himself determined to withstand the emperor’s tyranny at any cost, though he has no defence but to pray that Christ will send a demon to torture the emperor’s body that his soul be saved, according to 1 Corinthians 5:5.
Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople. But George when he arrived, was afraid to present them, and came back without having accomplished his mission. He was sent a second time on the same errand, but was arrested and imprisoned in Sicily by the imperial governor. The emperor now proceeded with his policy of enlarging and strengthening his own patriarchate at Constantinople. He conceived the idea of making it as great as all the empire over which he still actually ruled. Isauria, Leo’s birthplace, was taken from Antioch by an imperial edict and added to the Byzantine patriarchate, increasing it by the Metropolis, Seleucia, and about twenty other sees. Leo further pretended to withdraw Illyricum from the Roman patriarchate and to add it to that of Constantinople, and confiscated all the property of the Roman See on which he could lay his hands, in Sicily and Southern Italy. This naturally increased the enmity between Eastern and Western Christendom. In 731 Gregory III held a synod of ninety-three bishops at St. Peter’s in which all persons who broke, defiled, or took images of Christ, of His Mother, the Apostles or other saints were declared excommunicate. Another legate, Constantine, was sent with a copy of the decree and of its application to the emperor, but was again arrested and imprisoned in Sicily. Leo then sent a fleet to Italy to punish the pope; but it was wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while the Moslems continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.
Of course both Eastern and Western Christians did a lot to fight iconoclasm. But it’s interesting to note that all the Popes of the time opposed iconoclasm and fought it.
M
Monica4316
Guest
the rest of the article is also interesting in how it describes the Catholic view of the iconoclasm and how it relates it to the Schism and the Papacy.
The letter did not have any effect on the emperor; but it is from this time especially that the Catholics in the East turn with more loyalty than ever to Rome as their leader, their last refuge in the persecution. The well-known texts of St. Theodore in which he defends the primacy in the strongest possible language — e.g., “Whatever novelty is brought into the Church by those who wander from the truth must certainly be referred to Peter or to his successor . . . . Save us, chief pastor of the Church under heaven” (Ep. i, 33, P.G., XCIX, 1018); “Arrange that a decision be received from old Rome as the custom has been handed down from the beginning by the tradition of our fathers” (Ep. ii, 36; ibid., 1331 --were written during this persecution).
The protestations of loyalty to old Rome made by the Orthodox and Catholic Christians of the Byzantine Church at the time are her last witness immediately before the Great Schism. There were then two separate parties in the East having no communion with each other: the Iconoclast persecutors under the emperor with their anti-patriarch Theodotus, and the Catholics led by Theodore the Studite acknowledging the lawful patriarch Nicephorus and above him the distant Latin bishop who was to them the “chief pastor of the Church under heaven”.
The letter did not have any effect on the emperor; but it is from this time especially that the Catholics in the East turn with more loyalty than ever to Rome as their leader, their last refuge in the persecution. The well-known texts of St. Theodore in which he defends the primacy in the strongest possible language — e.g., “Whatever novelty is brought into the Church by those who wander from the truth must certainly be referred to Peter or to his successor . . . . Save us, chief pastor of the Church under heaven” (Ep. i, 33, P.G., XCIX, 1018); “Arrange that a decision be received from old Rome as the custom has been handed down from the beginning by the tradition of our fathers” (Ep. ii, 36; ibid., 1331 --were written during this persecution).
The protestations of loyalty to old Rome made by the Orthodox and Catholic Christians of the Byzantine Church at the time are her last witness immediately before the Great Schism. There were then two separate parties in the East having no communion with each other: the Iconoclast persecutors under the emperor with their anti-patriarch Theodotus, and the Catholics led by Theodore the Studite acknowledging the lawful patriarch Nicephorus and above him the distant Latin bishop who was to them the “chief pastor of the Church under heaven”.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
From the tone and tenor of your post, you sound like you should stay Catholic. Orthodoxy has a great liturgy, has undergone few changes and is less tainted by the 1960’s than Catholicism, but the hierarchy, leadership, papacy, theology, and catholicity are more what you’re looking for in Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
I personally cannot convert to Orthodoxy for several reasons: their views on the Atonement and Original Sin, IMO, are way off. I also don’t like how anti-Catholic they are and the way they view the transmission of orders with regard to Catholicism (cyprianic and cynical saying Catholics are not necessarily valid priests), and I think it’s far too ethnic and divided, not as catholic and universal IMO as Catholicism.
Think long and hard and pray. Read up on their views deeply and look at their atonment views. I think they’re dead wrong in this area.
I personally cannot convert to Orthodoxy for several reasons: their views on the Atonement and Original Sin, IMO, are way off. I also don’t like how anti-Catholic they are and the way they view the transmission of orders with regard to Catholicism (cyprianic and cynical saying Catholics are not necessarily valid priests), and I think it’s far too ethnic and divided, not as catholic and universal IMO as Catholicism.
Think long and hard and pray. Read up on their views deeply and look at their atonment views. I think they’re dead wrong in this area.
H
Harpazo
Guest
From the tone and tenor of your post, you sound like you should stay Catholic. Orthodoxy has a great liturgy, has undergone few changes and is less tainted by the 1960’s than Catholicism, but the hierarchy, leadership, papacy, theology, and catholicity are more what you’re looking for in Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
I personally cannot convert to Orthodoxy for several reasons: their views on the Atonement and Original Sin, IMO, are way off. I also don’t like how anti-Catholic they are and the way they view the transmission of orders with regard to Catholicism (cyprianic and cynical saying Catholics are not necessarily valid priests), and I think it’s far too ethnic and divided, not as catholic and universal IMO as Catholicism.
I’m sorry, but I have to call you out on this one.Judging from some posters on here, I, too, could make generalizations about the beliefs of all Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons, Muslims, et al., but how much sense would that make?
Regarding “transmission of orders,” this view has been held by the Orthodox (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) while the Churches were united. Why is it now a problem for Roman Catholics?
J
jfoges
Guest
honestly I think your problem is probably that you are so far to the “right” that it is infact you that is heterodox, not the ordinary catholic.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Wow. I’m sure that will help him tremendously? Why act compassionate to someone when you can drag them through the mud?
In Christ,
Andrew
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Yes! True and a very good point! That “something” about Catholicism that you speak of clearly is an real essential of Christianity.One of the things that impresses me most about Catholicism is the character of people that wish to join her. I’ve personally never met a convert to Catholicism who left their former life angry. Something about Catholicism really inspires that peace that knows no comprehension. In distinction, people who leave Catholicism seem like very angry people, and once they have left, they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the Catholic Church. Of course it doesn’t help when the organization they enter after having left Catholicism promotes anti-Catholicism.
That’s just what I’ve observed from my own experience, not a generalization.
Blessings,
Marduk
Dear brother [user]Rawb[/user]:
For 25 years I experienced the beauty and magisty of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I’ve known many Orthodox people who were godly examples that inspired me to come closer to Christ and try to live a holy life. I’ve seen the riches of Holy Apostolic Traditions. And yet all this would not even exist today in the Eastern Orthodox Churches if the Rock apon which Christ built His Church was not there and they were not once one with St. Peter. All that they have comes from Christ through the Whole Church united.
I united myself personally to the Roman Church so I personally could be sure that I was in the Church, which surety comes via communion with St. Peter. I’m not saying that the Eastern Orthodox are outside of the Church (I in fact believe they are a part of the Catholic Church), but to have a much greater certainty one needs to be in communion with Rome. The result of this is peace and joy! I am well aware of all of the problems in the Roman Church today. I have, for example, received communion from Roman priests that I know are homo-sexual and this GREATLY upsets me! But I don’t let it DISTRACT me from the source of my added Joy and unexplainable peace. For this reason I very rarely even speak of the grave problems in the Church. I trust that in time all these issues will be resolved as so very many issues in our history have likewise been resolved with the help of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If I were ever to give up that special “something” about Catholicism thinking I could get more of the other wonders of Christianity elsewhere and less of the spiritually ugly things, my joy would become shallow and may even turn into bitterness.
Don’t be afraid of visiting the Eastern Churches and perhaps learning of something there there that may spiritually enrich you; just don’t give up what you already have to do so. You will, see very soon I think, see the great re-union of Rome and most Eastern Orthodox. And when you see this happen expect two things to also soon happen. 1) The Eastern Churches will grow again and become a far greater witness for Christ and His Church. And, 2) The Roman Church will start to compeat with the other Catholic churches to see who can be a better witness for Christ. This will turn all those negative issues into unpopular and undesirable issues to the majority. The Protestants often speak of “revival”. We will soon show them what a real Catholic revival is like!
M
Mickey
Guest
I have seen protestants come to the Roman Catholic Church in great peace and inspiration because they have discovered more truth. I do not know any Orthodox converts to Roman Catholicism.
But Roman Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy may be a bit overly zealous. I believe this may be due to the fact that they finally realize that they had been a part of an institution which wrongly taught post schism doctrinal innovations such as papal infallibility and IC.
When they finally come home to the fullness of truth of Holy Orthodoxy there is some disappointment that they had not entered the Apostolic Church sooner.
But this is just my experience.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
This extremely uncharitable woman prompted me to look up the forum rules. They say (under the subject of “Charity”) that we should just offer this sort of thing up to God - it says it’s “the Catholic thing to do”. In other words its the “right” thing to do. - Amen.
R
rben20
Guest
Exactly right cat herder. The OP should always keep this in mind. The Church has always had its share of trouble and sometimes it has been worse than other ages. The reality is as long as humans are in charge of the Church as God intended and humans outside the Church, there will always be threats. We can’t allow all these problems to run around and just sit there or in the OP case give up and leave. If you truly love the Church you must fight for it…we are the Church Militant after all. Ask not what the Catholic Church can do for you but what you can do for the Catholic Church.
R
rben20
Guest
- Status