The Last Ecumenical Council

The Anglican Church is the only major Protestant Church that upholds all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Coincidentally this isn't the only quality they have in common with the Eastern Orthodox, the way their founded on the King being the head of the Church fits the Emperor's role in Byzantine Christianity.

For most Protestants this is the only Ecumenical Council they really go out of their way to criticize. Calvin expressed general agreement with the first 4, ignored the next 2 and then went hard on the 7th.  Martin Luther himself didn't approve of iconoclastic tendencies, but still never specifically addressed any Ecumenical Councils after Chalcedon.

I perhaps have more sympathy for this council then most American Evangelicals and Protestants.  Literal Idolatry is not as pressing a concern under the New Testament, civil leaders are no longer judged chiefly on how zealous they are about shutting down Polytheistic worship.  So I'm not an Iconoclast since I don't even believe in going out of our way to destroy actual Pagan Idols, like Roger Williams I feel NT Christians should follow the example the Religious Tolerance of Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

Still, Old Testament applications of the Second Commandment definitely include Images that were supposedly of YHWH, the worship of the Golden Calf was called a Feast to YHWH in Exodus 32:5 and Jeroboam's Idols were identified with YHWH, Jehu is depicted as a devout YHWH onlyist and yet he too was guilty of the Sins of Jeroboam.

I do believe certain things changed at The Cross, so the implications of the Incarnation on this issue should be considered.  NT passages that present Idolatry as still a concern are in the context of what Paul taught the Corinthians, it's about belief more so then actions.  This issue remains ambiguous because nothing in the New Testament either specifically condones Images of Jesus or prohibits them.  There is New Testament support for using symbols instead, like how Paul verbally uses The Cross as a symbol.

Ryan Reeves and others have pointed out how the Early Church used Art but didn't artistically depict Jesus even for awhile after Nicaea, Images of Jesus don't start to show up till the late 5th Century and increased in popularity during the reign of Justinian and again in the 7th century.  The Synod of Elvira was a Pre-Nicaea council that expressed a harsh view of using images.

The first "Iconclast" Emperor Leo III did not actually engage in any active persecution of those who insisted on keeping their Icons, it was his successors who started going that far.  Wikipedia says that poorer regions of the Empire generally supported Iconoclasm more then the wealthier regions.

The overturned pro-iconoclasm council was the ONLY early Church council to epxliclty affirm endless torment in hell and anathematize any who reject that doctrine.  That doesn't seem directly relevant to the issue at hand, unless the Iconophiles typically believed in Universal Salvation, like Gregory of Nyssa who the seventh council proclaimed a father of the fathers.  That would be a reason for me to feel inclined towards the Iconophiles, but I won't let that shade how I critique everything else.

Saying the Iconoclasts are wrong is one thing, but outright Anathamatizing the act was based on saying it is sinful agaisnt God to destroy an Image of God.  And that is the start of what makes this council Idolatrous.

But they went beyond just condemning the destruction of Icons.  One of the Anathamas reads "Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images", I don't care how you distinguish "salute" from "worship", telling me I'm accursed for not respecting your images makes you just as much of a judgmental zealot as the ones breaking them.  I for the record consider even Saluting the American Flag to be idolatry.

This council also affirmed the Veneration of Mary and the Saints and Images of them, not just of Jesus, and refers to praying to Mary.  This distinction Catholics insist on making between Veneration and Worship is amusing to me.  If you went back in time to before Christianity even existed and tried to explain to someone how your praying to a famous person who died before you were born isn't worshiping them, they would laugh at you.  It is solely Christians trying to justify un-Biblical behavior that has created this distinction.

The Council even affirms sacred relics in Canon 7 even saying you can't have Churches without them (The New Testament teaches that a church is any place where two or more believers gather together.).  The Brazen Serpent is a symbol of Jesus yet it had to be destroyed when The Israelites started "venerating" it.  And no I don't think The Ark's role in the Temple is a comparable kind of Veneration, because it was there to be the thing a proper cult Idol would be standing or sitting on top of in a normal Temple. 

This is as good a time as any to state that I disapprove of calling Mary "Theotokos", the technical accuracy of the term isn't the point, the title isn't Biblical, calling her The Virgin Mary is enough.  I agree with 100% of the gist of the Chalcedonian definition, and have no objection to 90% of the details, only this word, "before all ages" and I would say "Scriptures" in-place of "Fathers" at the beginning and end.

I've tried not to take the anti Theotokos position since I respect a lot of Greek Orthodox believers.  But there is no getting around it anymore.