Ben O.
The document Synod of 754 is a chronicle of the desicions made at the Synod of 754 regarding the Church's stance on icons and their veneration. The document makes it clear that the practice of creating and venerating icons is regarded as a heresy by the church leadership and by the empire. The stated reasoning for this is that the practice 1.) attempts to make an image of the Godhead, and 2.)intermixes the Godhead and humanity by portraying Christ. The document then goes on to list further heresies that are deserving of anathema and closes by declaring anathema on a few specific proponents of icons: Germanus, George, and Mansur. The Chronicle of Theophanes the confessor represents an iconophiles take on the iconoclastic decision of the Synod. It begins by decrying the Synod as an illegal assembly, set to destroy a holy and established tradtion. The work labels iconoclasm as a heresy and denounces the anathema of Gemanus, George, and Mansur.
The Synod of 754 document and the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor are representative of the two sides of the debate regarding the veneration and usage of Icons, both vehemently opposed to each other and as inflamatory in their rhetoric. The Synod of 754 makes it's case in several ways. First it appeals to the decisions of the other 6 previous Synods so as to give it a sense of credibility and tradtion. Next it attempts to link the veneration of icons to what would be considered established heresies such as Nestorianism or Arianism. By doing these two things the Synods decision seems less of a one time descision and more of a continuation of orthodox thought and is rooted in the tradtion of the Church. The Chronicle makes a similar attempt to link the use of icons to the past, stating “...against the holy and venerable icons under the leadership of Theodosuis of Ephesus”(85). By this reconing the practice is hundreds of years old and thoughly rooted in tradtion. In addition this document is not to kind of its opponents calling it a fitting end for Anastasius that he died “of a dreadful desiese og the guts after vomiting dung through his mouth”(85). Finally it ends by extoling the virtues of those men that were called anathema by the Synod to bolster their status.
The document Synod of 754 is a chronicle of the desicions made at the Synod of 754 regarding the Church's stance on icons and their veneration. The document makes it clear that the practice of creating and venerating icons is regarded as a heresy by the church leadership and by the empire. The stated reasoning for this is that the practice 1.) attempts to make an image of the Godhead, and 2.)intermixes the Godhead and humanity by portraying Christ. The document then goes on to list further heresies that are deserving of anathema and closes by declaring anathema on a few specific proponents of icons: Germanus, George, and Mansur. The Chronicle of Theophanes the confessor represents an iconophiles take on the iconoclastic decision of the Synod. It begins by decrying the Synod as an illegal assembly, set to destroy a holy and established tradtion. The work labels iconoclasm as a heresy and denounces the anathema of Gemanus, George, and Mansur.
The Synod of 754 document and the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor are representative of the two sides of the debate regarding the veneration and usage of Icons, both vehemently opposed to each other and as inflamatory in their rhetoric. The Synod of 754 makes it's case in several ways. First it appeals to the decisions of the other 6 previous Synods so as to give it a sense of credibility and tradtion. Next it attempts to link the veneration of icons to what would be considered established heresies such as Nestorianism or Arianism. By doing these two things the Synods decision seems less of a one time descision and more of a continuation of orthodox thought and is rooted in the tradtion of the Church. The Chronicle makes a similar attempt to link the use of icons to the past, stating “...against the holy and venerable icons under the leadership of Theodosuis of Ephesus”(85). By this reconing the practice is hundreds of years old and thoughly rooted in tradtion. In addition this document is not to kind of its opponents calling it a fitting end for Anastasius that he died “of a dreadful desiese og the guts after vomiting dung through his mouth”(85). Finally it ends by extoling the virtues of those men that were called anathema by the Synod to bolster their status.