The iconoclastic controversy
Initial iconoclastic outbreak leader was Leo III, the roman emperor who declared series of decrees in opposition to icons. He introduced iconoclasm in the year 726. However, he was not a theological trailblazer (Cunliffe-Jones, Pg 234). He propagated iconoclasm as a political official throughout the empire, but he was not the actual formulator of the iconoclastic ideology. The iconoclastic controversy originated from numerous anti-Christian sources and penetrated into Emperor Leo person in nexus. Islamic religion in 8th century provided fundamental grounds for substantial forces championing for iconoclasm. Caliph Iezid II showed a notable example by issuing an order to destroy within his dominions pictures in Christian churches. In consideration of the consistent warring relations enduring by Muslim bordering nations is, not beyond possible imagination of a state official proactively executing destruction of elements likely to result into friction with aggressors in the neighborhood (Cunliffe-Jones, Pg 234).
A second cause of the iconoclastic controversy was the origin of Monophysite. In the 5th century, Hierapolis bishop considerably a Monophysite issued an order forbidding his diocese of accessing or possessing any saint or angle images. Later in the 6th century, Serenus of Marseilles case proved of icon-destruction ended up fuelling the controversy stretching over a century. A third pre-Leo iconoclasm bastion happened in the Nestorian church though their mandated exclusion from the Byzantine (Roman) empire ended them in an exclusive situation of being Leo’s influence candidate. The fundamental source of the iconoclasm controversy was the Paulician sect, a sturdily iconoclastic group that ended up flourishing in the southeastern Asia, origin of Leo’s family (Duiker et al, Pg 210).
An additional origin of the controversy existed within puritanical Orthodox Church section, amongst the clergy who participated in anticipation of the iconoclastic controversy objection against idols. Episcopal indications of this controversy were the Constantine of Nacolia in Phrygia, and the bishop of Claudiopolis named Thomas. The Patriarch reprimanded them in the early 8th century (Duiker et al, Pg 210). This section of the church that was puritanical exemplified thinking thread having various adherents witnessed ever since early Christianity serving ties with the Judaism. They denied Christ incarnation despite the presence of Jewish synagogues covered in angels and saints icons. The strand of thought faced traction from some of the pre-Nicea-II clergy of the orthodox. All the influences including Monophysite, Muslim, Nestorian, puritanical, Paulician to a considerate extent, coalesced in the formation of a heretical zeitgeist underground that eventually came out to the top in the infamous Leo II, the Isaurian Emperor.
In 726, the emperor publicly declared to make clear his stand on opposing icons. This marked a start of a long time controversy. He put this action into practice by gesturing symbolically through destroying Christ image. This action led to the provocation of outrageous rioting and condemnation from Germanus of Constantinople the patriarch. The emperor’s response to the riots was harsh, but he executed none amongst the preliminary iconophile resistance. In the rest of the emperor’s rule, the polemic controversy developed on both sides. This was a significant development considering the 8th century Christological argument aligned with and for icons that was not quite developed. Initially, the controversy arguments were predominantly centered on allegations based on iconophile’s violation allegations of the second commandment. The situation of the orthodox on the matter was multifaceted and preeminently expressed by St. John of Damascus. Emperor Constantine, Leo’s son took the iconoclasm controversy to the next level circulating propaganda storm lacking substantial evidence. Defective incarnation view fueled Constantine’s iconoclastic theology necessitating the call of first six universal councils.
During the reigns of the other emperors, the subsequent second wave of iconoclasts, theological acumen became vastly lower compared to the first wave. The considered exception was the avid iconoclastic apologist, John the grammarian. The perspective of theology indicates that incarnation doctrine continued on both sides forming a centre for a notable controversy. The recognizable exception was the case of John the Grammarian, who presented thought as an iconoclastic apologist. From a theological view, the canon of the Incarnation proceeded to be the central obligated subject of controversy. The iconoclasts progressed with the frequent display of a Monophysite bent (Cunliffe-Jones, Pg 234).
Work cited
Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. A History of Christian Doctrine. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Print.
Duiker, William J, and Jackson J. Spielvogel. World History. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Print.
