Second Council of Nicaea

Authority level: Dogma
Evidence type: Historical account
GuideThe legitimacy of venerating sacred images and the distinction from adoration are definitive Catholic doctrine; the council's disciplinary canons and contested reception belong to law and history.
Contents

Second Council of Nicaea was the seventh ecumenical council, held in 787 and received by the Catholic Church as the definitive condemnation of iconoclasm. It taught that sacred images of Christ, the Mother of God, the angels, and the saints may and should receive honorable veneration, while true adoration belongs to God alone.

The Second Council of Nicaea is recognized as the last of the first seven ecumenical councils by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. In addition, it is also recognized as such by Old Catholics and others. Protestant opinions on it are varied.

The Council assembled in 787 AD in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea; present-day İznik, Bursa, in Turkey), to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images),[10] which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.

The Council determined that the honorary veneration (timētikē proskynēsis) of icons was permitted, and that the true adoration (alēthinē latreia) was reserved for God alone. It further stated that honor given to an icon passes through to its subject and therefore is not idolatrous as the iconoclasts believed. The iconodule position was not justified by Christological arguments as in the Council of Hieria. Rather, the antiquity of iconodulia and the Incarnation of Christ, which was said to make acceptable the depiction of Christ, were emphasized.[11][12]

Images before the iconoclast controversy

Christians inherited Israel's absolute rejection of idols and confessed that no creature may receive the adoration due to the Creator. They also inherited divinely commanded sacred imagery: cherubim over the ark, figures in the Temple, and signs through which God directed Israel's memory. Early Christian art placed biblical scenes, the Good Shepherd, Christ, martyrs, and symbols of salvation in catacombs and churches. The existence of images did not by itself settle later questions about their liturgical honor, but it prevents iconoclasm from being treated as the original universal Christian practice.

The Incarnation transformed the theological question without abolishing the commandment against idols. The eternal Word, invisible according to divinity, truly assumed visible human flesh. An image of Christ claims to depict the human appearance of a real person, not to circumscribe the divine nature. Refusal to depict him can therefore imply that the humanity is unreal or separable from the Son. At the same time, no picture exhausts the mystery or makes pigment divine. Catholic doctrine keeps the image, the prototype, and the unique worship of God distinct.

Honor toward relics, the Cross, the Gospel book, and images developed within the Church's sacramental culture. Bodily gestures such as bowing, kissing, lighting lamps, and burning incense can express different kinds of honor according to their object and intention. The same outward motion does not always signify latria. This semantic and ritual fact became decisive when opponents labeled every prostration before an image idolatry and defenders insisted that relative honor terminates in the person represented.

Idol and icon

An idol is treated as a god or as possessing the divine reality owed worship; an icon refers beyond its material support to a prototype. The distinction does not excuse superstition. A Christian may misuse an image, and pastors must correct any practice that attributes automatic power to an object apart from God. Nicaea II defended the right use of images within the confession of creation, Incarnation, and communion of saints. It did not baptize pagan worship or permit Christians to adore created matter.[1]

Imperial iconoclasm

The first Byzantine iconoclast period began under Emperor Leo III in the eighth century. Its causes included genuine fear of idolatry, imperial theology, military and political crisis, disputes about monastic influence, and contested interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. Surviving sources come largely through the eventual victors and must be read critically, but the policy clearly moved beyond private restraint to coercive removal and destruction of images. Monks and other defenders suffered deposition, exile, violence, and confiscation.

Emperor Constantine V supplied iconoclasm with an elaborate Christological rationale. The council held at Hieria in 754, attended by hundreds of bishops but without the pope or any of the other patriarchs, claimed ecumenical standing and condemned the making and veneration of icons. It argued that an image of Christ must either divide his natures or confuse them. The Catholic answer is that an image represents the person according to his visible humanity; it does not claim to paint the divine essence or isolate a human person from the Word.

Saint John Damascene, writing under Muslim rule beyond Byzantine imperial reach, became the most influential defender. He distinguished worship of God from relative veneration and connected the legitimacy of images to the Word made flesh. Matter is not evil: God created it, the Son assumed it, and God uses material signs in the economy of salvation. John's arguments did not themselves constitute the later definition, but Nicaea II received their central logic within the authority of an ecumenical council.[2]

The false council of Hieria

Hieria's large attendance did not make it ecumenical. It lacked communion with the Apostolic See and the patriarchal representation expected for a judgment of the universal Church, and its doctrine was rejected by the subsequent council received by Rome and the East. Catholic ecclesiology does not count heads alone. A council is ecumenical through the act of the episcopal college with and under its head, the Roman Pontiff, and its decrees bind through papal approval and promulgation.[3]

Convocation and the failed assembly of 786

After Emperor Leo IV died in 780, Empress Irene governed as regent for the young Constantine VI and began restoring ecclesiastical peace. Patriarch Paul IV resigned after expressing repentance for his iconoclast involvement. Tarasios, then a lay imperial official, accepted election as patriarch only after insisting on reunion with the other patriarchal sees and an ecumenical settlement. Irene and Constantine announced the council to Pope Hadrian I, who supported restoration of images, stated Roman conditions, and sent two legates named Peter.[4]

The first assembly opened in Constantinople in 786 but iconoclast soldiers entered the Church of the Holy Apostles and dispersed the bishops. The government subsequently removed the mutinous units from the capital and summoned a new meeting at Nicaea, the city of the first ecumenical council. The failure demonstrates that imperial favor alone did not make the outcome automatic. The iconodule cause had to survive armed resistance, reconcile compromised bishops, examine tradition, and obtain ecclesial reception.

The renewed council opened in the church of Hagia Sophia at Nicaea on 24 September 787. Tarasios presided; papal legates and representatives associated with the eastern patriarchates took part. More than three hundred bishops or representatives eventually subscribed. Seven sessions occurred at Nicaea, with a solemn final session before the imperial court in Constantinople on 23 October. The acts preserve extensive readings from Scripture, Fathers, saints' lives, earlier councils, and testimonies about Christian practice.[5]

Reconciliation and episcopal responsibility

The council had to decide how bishops who had submitted to iconoclasm could return. It distinguished leaders and persistent teachers from men who renounced error, examined professions, and applied precedents from earlier heresies. This was neither indifference nor collective vengeance. Episcopal communion requires orthodox profession, yet repentance can restore those who were coerced or deceived. The proceedings show doctrinal judgment functioning pastorally without pretending that public error has no consequences.

The definition on sacred images

Nicaea II received the six earlier ecumenical councils and ordered that venerable and holy images be set in churches, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses, and along roads. It named images of Jesus Christ, the immaculate Mother of God, honorable angels, and all saints and holy persons. The more frequently the faithful see them, the more they are moved to remember and long for their prototypes. Images thus serve confession, memory, instruction, prayer, and the visible communion of the Church.[6]

The council authorized greetings and honorable veneration, often expressed by the Greek timētikē proskynēsis. It explicitly withheld the true latria that belongs by faith to the divine nature alone. Incense and lights may be offered before images as they were before the Cross, Gospel book, and other sacred objects, according to pious custom. The material object is not mistaken for God. The honor shown to the image passes to the prototype, so the person venerating an icon venerates the one represented in it.

This relative veneration differs according to the prototype. Christ is adored as God, yet his icon receives relative honor as an image; Mary is venerated with the unique honor proper to the Mother of God but never adored; angels and saints receive the honor due glorified creatures and members of Christ. The distinctions are not verbal evasions. They name objectively different relationships, just as honoring a Gospel book, a national flag, or a family photograph is not a claim that cloth, paper, or pigment is a deity.

Incarnation and prototype

The doctrinal foundation is Christological. Because the Son truly became visible, an image can refer to his historical human appearance without separating his humanity from his divine person. Honor reaches the person represented, not a nature considered apart. The council's rule therefore guards both the reality of the Incarnation and the transcendence of God. It neither pictures the divine essence nor reduces the sacramental economy to inward ideas detached from created matter.

Tradition, Scripture, and the saints

The council appealed to written and unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, but not as a second revelation alongside Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is the living transmission of the one deposit of faith in preaching, worship, discipline, and the Church's judgment. The fathers read biblical prohibitions of idols together with the commanded cherubim, the Incarnation, the honor of holy persons, and inherited Christian practice. The conclusion follows the unity of Scripture within the Church rather than a proof text detached from salvation history.[7]

Patristic testimony occupied a major place, although modern criticism must evaluate individual attributions in the acts. The authority of the definition does not depend on every cited story being historically certain or every text being correctly attributed. Councils use evidence within a corporate judgment, and later scholarship can correct a citation without overturning the doctrine defined from the whole tradition. Nicaea II itself insisted on continuity with the Fathers and condemned invention opposed to the Church's received rule.

Images proclaim the communion of saints. Depicting a martyr or confessor does not make the saint omnipresent or independently powerful. It confesses that grace has truly sanctified human persons, that death has not severed them from Christ, and that the Church on earth remains joined to the Church in glory. The icon's reference is personal: prayer is addressed ultimately to God, while requests for saintly intercession belong to the communion created by Christ.

Not a sacrament and not magic

A sacred image is a sacramental in the broad life of Christian signs when blessed and used by the Church, but it is not one of the seven sacraments and does not confer grace ex opere operato. Its holiness is relational and ecclesial. Beauty, canonical form, blessing, and reverent use dispose the faithful toward divine realities; none turns an icon into a talisman. Destruction of images is wrong when it rejects their prototype or the Church's faith, while conservation and restoration remain governed by prudence and competent authority.

Disciplinary reform

The council enacted twenty-two canons distinct from its doctrinal definition. They required bishops and clerics to know Scripture and the canons, prohibited simony in episcopal appointments, protected ecclesiastical property, and resisted secular interference. Provincial synods were to meet regularly, and metropolitan authority was to operate according to canonical order. These measures addressed the institutional damage of iconoclasm as well as abuses not unique to the image controversy.

Canon 7 required relics to be placed in churches consecrated without them, maintaining the ancient bond between altar and martyrs. Other canons regulated the reception of converted iconoclast clergy and writings, clerical dress and conduct, monasteries converted to secular use, the founding of religious houses without adequate provision, and monks or nuns leaving their proper state. Mixed monasteries received restrictive rules intended to protect chastity and order.

The canons also prohibited ecclesiastics from demanding payment, alienating property, or using authority for private households. They reflect eighth-century Byzantine structures and are not all current universal law. Their authority was genuine within the council's legal reception, but discipline can develop, be replaced, or cease when competent authority legislates otherwise. The permanent doctrine about images does not make every administrative remedy irreformable.

Relics and altars

The rule concerning relics expresses the Eucharistic Church's communion with the martyrs, not a belief that bones mechanically validate the sacrifice of the Mass. Current Latin discipline preserves relics beneath fixed altars when appropriate and insists that authenticity be established. The sacrament's validity depends on Christ's institution, valid priesthood, matter, form, and intention, not on possession of a relic. Historical continuity should therefore be affirmed without superstition.

Latin reception and the Carolingian controversy

Pope Hadrian's legates signed the council, and Rome received its doctrinal judgment. Reception north of the Alps was complicated by politics and an inadequate Latin translation. Greek terms for relative veneration and divine adoration were rendered in ways that made the council appear to command worship of images. The Carolingian Libri Carolini criticized what its authors believed the Greeks had decreed, and the Council of Frankfurt in 794 rejected both iconoclasm and the alleged adoration of images.

The disagreement cannot be described simply as Rome and the Franks jointly rejecting Nicaea II. Hadrian answered the Carolingian objections and defended the council, while political tension among the papacy, Byzantium, and Charlemagne sharpened the dispute. Better translations and later theological reception clarified that the target condemned by the Franks was not the council's actual distinction. The Catholic Church counts Nicaea II unequivocally as the seventh ecumenical council.

A second Byzantine iconoclast period began in 815, showing that a definition can be resisted after lawful promulgation. Empress Theodora restored icons in 843; Byzantine Churches commemorate that restoration on the first Sunday of Lent as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The liturgical celebration receives the victory of orthodox faith, while the council itself remains the dogmatic norm. Political enforcement and later polemic must not be confused with the content of that norm.

Translation as a theological responsibility

The Carolingian episode demonstrates that terminology can create apparent heresy where parties partly share the same rule of faith. Proskynēsis, veneratio, adoratio, cultus, and latria do not map mechanically across languages or periods. Catholic theology must define the object and kind of honor rather than infer idolatry from a single translated word. Accurate translation serves communion because doctrine is confessed through language without being reducible to vocabulary alone.

Catholic doctrine and practice

The Catechism receives Nicaea II in both liturgical and moral teaching. Christian iconography makes present in image the Gospel message that Scripture communicates in words; contemplation of sacred images, joined to meditation on God's word and liturgical hymnody, forms a harmony of signs. The prohibition of idols remains absolute, but it is not violated by venerating an image whose honor is directed to Christ or his saints. The Incarnation introduced a new economy of images because the Son truly became visible.[8][9]

Catholic churches may use statues, paintings, mosaics, stained glass, reliefs, and other forms rather than only Byzantine icons. Nicaea II defines the legitimacy and theological principle, not one exclusive artistic style. Pastors and artists remain responsible for doctrinal clarity, noble beauty, suitability for worship, and avoidance of sensuality, triviality, propaganda, or confusion. Images should lead to the mystery celebrated rather than compete with the altar or turn the sanctuary into a gallery.

Veneration is embodied: a Catholic may kiss an icon, bow, carry it in procession, place flowers, or burn incense. No individual is required to practice every approved gesture, but rejection of the council's doctrine as idolatry contradicts Catholic faith. Conversely, approved veneration never excuses claims that an image grants favors apart from God, predicts the future, or deserves the adoration of the Trinity. The council supplies both the positive doctrine and the boundary against abuse.

The seventh council today

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox jointly receive Nicaea II, making it a major point of shared first-millennium faith. Some Protestant communities reject or qualify it, often because their account of Scripture and Tradition or their definition of worship differs. Catholic dialogue should state the council accurately before answering objections: God alone is adored; created persons and their images receive only relative honor; and the visible humanity of Christ is the decisive center. The doctrine is neither aesthetic preference nor permission for idolatry.

Background

The veneration of icons had been banned by Byzantine Emperor Constantine V and supported by his Council of Hieria (754 AD), which had described itself as the seventh ecumenical council.[13] The Council of Hieria was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea only 33 years later, and has also been rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches, since none of the five major patriarchs were represented. The emperor's vigorous enforcement of the ban included persecution of those who venerated icons and of monks in general. There were also political overtones to the persecution—images of emperors were still allowed by Constantine, which some opponents saw as an attempt to give wider authority to imperial power than to the saints and bishops.[14] Constantine's iconoclastic tendencies were shared by Constantine's son, Leo IV. After the latter's early death, his widow, Irene of Athens, as regent for her son, began its restoration for personal inclination and political considerations.

On Christmas Day 784, the head of the imperial chancellery, Tarasios, was appointed successor to the iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople, Paul IV, by Irene. Together they were attempting to solemnize the iconodule reversal of imperial policy with an ecumenical council. Pope Adrian I was invited to participate, and gladly accepted, sending two legates.[15]

In 786, the council met in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. However, soldiers in collusion with iconoclast bishops entered the church, and broke up the assembly.[16] As a result, Irene resorted to a stratagem. Under the pretext of responding to an alleged Arab attack in Asia Minor, the iconoclastic bodyguard was sent away from the capital—then disarmed and disbanded. Tarasios dealt with the episcopal opposition by allowing notoriously iconoclast bishops to retain their positions so long as they made a public admission of error, and also by disguising two eastern monks as envoys of the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, to justify the council's claim to ecumenical status.[12]

The Council was again assembled, this time in the symbolic location of Nicaea, the site of the first ecumenical council. The council opened on 24 September 787[17] at the Hagia Sophia.[18] It numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasios presided,[19] and seven sessions were held in Nicaea.[16]

Proceedings

  • First Session (24 September 787) – There was debate over whether bishops who had accepted iconoclasm when under iconoclast rule could remain in office.
  • Second Session (26 September 787) – Letters from Pope Adrian I were read out in Greek translation, approving the veneration of images, but severely critical of Byzantine infringement of papal rights. Accepting the letter at the papal legate's prompting, the bishops answered: "We follow, we receive, we admit".
  • Third Session (28 September 787) – The supposed representatives of the oriental patriarchates presented their credentials. From these it is clear that their patriarchs had not in fact appointed them.
  • Fourth Session (1 October 787) – Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Exodus 25:19 sqq.; Numbers 7:89; Hebrews 9:5 sqq.; Ezekiel 41:18, and Genesis 31:43-49, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers;[10] and from hagiography.
  • Fifth Session (4 October 787) – A further florilegium was read out, "proving" that iconoclasm originated from pagans, Jews, Muslims, and heretics.
  • Sixth Session (7 October 787) – The definition of the pseudo-Seventh council (754) and a long refutation of the same (probably by Tarasius) were read.
  • Seventh Session (13 October 787) – The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images. Hagia Sophia of Nicaea, where the Council took place; Iznik, Turkey Hagia Sophia, İznik It was determined that: As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone—for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented. This definition of the proper religious veneration of images centers on the distinction between timētikē proskynēsis, meaning the "veneration of honour", and "alēthinē latreia", meaning "true adoration". The former is permitted to images in the same way as to other holy things, notably the cross and the gospel-book, while the latter, "latreia", is reserved for God alone. But the statement that follows, to the effect that the honor paid to the image passes over to its prototype implies on the contrary that there are not two different degrees of veneration, but a single veneration that is not idolatrous since it treats the image as a door or window through which the person praying to the image perceives and adores the heavenly personage who is depicted in it. This could not lead to a worship of images of the Godhead in Byzantium, since no attempt was made to represent Godhead in art. But a problem remains over the human nature of Christ, which is certainly represented in art and which at the same time shares fully in the adoration paid to Christ as God: it would be heretical to worship Christ's Godhead but only honour his humanity.
  • The so-called "Eighth Session" (23 October 787) held in Constantinople at the Magnaura Palace supposedly in the presence of the emperors Constantine IV and Irene. Erich Lamberz has proved that this "session" is a late ninth-century forgery (see Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 655–56). The purpose of the addition was to do justice to the role of the emperors at this ecumenical council as at its predecessors.

The twenty-two canons[20] drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened.

The council also decreed that every altar should contain a relic, which remains the case in modern Catholic and Orthodox regulations (Canon VII), and made a number of decrees on clerical discipline, especially for monks when mixing with women.

Reception

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the Patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Adrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). While Adrian's legates were returning from Constantinople to Rome with a copy of the Acts of the Council, the deposed Lombard king Adalgis along with a Byzantine expeditionary force were disembarking in Italy to drive out the Franks. The proceedings of the Council proclaimed the unity of the Byzantine emperor and pope on iconodulia, intentionally neglecting to mention Charlemagne, King of the Franks, which enraged the Franks who the Pope was attempting to align himself with. However, the Franks successfully repelled the Byzantine expedition, and Adrian's relations with Charlemagne were restored despite his diplomatic blunder.[21]

The Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at a synod in 794. Charlemagne supported the composition of the Libri Carolini, which was most likely composed in summer 793 by the influential Carolingian theologian, Theodulf of Orléans, in Saint Emmeram's Abbey, Regensburg. The main purpose of the work was to rebut the decrees of the Council, especially the "errors of the Greeks". Some modern scholars judge the Latin translation of the Acts, which Theodulf used, to be very poor: "a monument of inadequate translation. Its garbled nature gave rise to outrage among the court theologians"; it is also said to be, "bedeviled by inaccurate and in some cases intentionally incorrect translations". Other scholars, such as Thomas Noble, note that "the Carolingians themselves exhibited for some fifty or sixty years an essential familiarity with all the basic elements in discussions about sacred art."[22] Theodulf's judgment was that Irene's aim was to "promote the superstitious adoration of images" through the council. Theodulf cited Church Fathers such as Augustine of Hippo as iconoclast witnesses.[23] A copy was sent to Pope Adrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[24] The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council was subsequently accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church. According to the Libri, the ruling of the council against iconoclasm led to "civil war" within the Empire, and other ninth-century iconodule sources condemn clergymen and laymen who remained iconoclasts.[12]

The Council, or rather the final defeat of iconoclasm in 843, is celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite as "The Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy" each year on the first Sunday of Great Lent, the fast that leads up to Pascha (Easter), and again on the Sunday closest to 11 October (the Sunday on or after 8 October). The former celebration commemorates the defeat of iconoclasm, while the latter commemorates the council itself. The Papacy did not formally confirm the decrees of the council until 880.

Many Protestants who follow the French reformer John Calvin generally agree in rejecting the canons of the Council, which they believe promoted idolatry. He rejected the distinction between veneration (douleia, proskynēsis) and adoration (latreia) as unbiblical "sophistry" and condemned even the decorative use of images.[25] In subsequent editions of the Institutes, he cited the Libri Carolini.

Classical Anglicanism also rejected the decrees of the Council. The official Anglican Homily against the Peril of Idolatry in the 16th century singles it out several times as justifying idolatry: “And at the second Council Nicene, the Bishops and Clergy decreed, that images should be worshipped: and so by occasion of these stumbling blocks, not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise, not the people only, but the Bishops, not the sheep, but also the shepherds themselves (who should have been guides in the right way, and light to shine in darkness) being blinded by the bewitching of images, as blind guides of the blind, fell both into the pit of damnable Idolatry.” The Thirty-Nine Articles also states: “…de veneratione tum Imaginum… res est futilis, inaniter conflicta, et nullis Scripturarum testimoniis innititur; imo verbo Dei contradicit.”

Bishops of Dalmatia

It is particularly interesting that four Dalmatian bishops are among the signatories of the synod, whose cities were no longer under Byzantine rule.[26][27] These Dalmatian bishoprics had been dissolved earlier. So the question arises of when these bishoprics were re-established in these medieval Dalmatian cities.[27][26]

The four Dalmatian bishops who signed the synod were the following, in order.

  • “Ioannes episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Salonentianae” (John of Salona-Split)
  • “Laurentius episcopus sanctae Absartianensis ecclesiae” (Lawrence of Osor)
  • “Ursus episcopus Avaritianensium ecclesiae” (Ursus of Rab)
  • “Ioannes episcopus Decateron” (John of Kotor)[27][26]

This suggests that new bishoprics was founded or old (Early Christian) episcopal seats were re-established in this area.[27][26] The founding of these bishoprics is attested by the 8th century Chronicon Gradense. The chronicle reports the foundation of several Dalmatian bishoprics, such as the bishopric of Rab as "Avoriciensis/Avonciensis ecclesia", the foundation of the bishopric of Krk as "episcopatus in Vegla", the foundation of the bishopric of Osor as "episcopatus in Asparo", and the bishopric of Pićan as "episcopus Pathensis". As the chronicle reports a Dalmatian provincial synod held in the city of Grado.[26]

Critical edition of the Greek text

  • Concilium universale Nicaenum Secundum, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ser. 2, vol. 3, in 3 parts, ed. Erich Lamberz, Berlin 2008–2016. Also includes the Latin translation by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

Translations

There are only a few translations of the above Acts in the modern languages.

  • English translation made in 1850 by an Anglican priest, John Mendham; with notes taken largely from the attack on the council in the Libri Carolini. The aim of the translation was to show how the Catholic veneration of images is based on superstition and forgery.[28]
  • The Canons and excerpts of the Acts in The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, translated by Henry Robert Percival and edited by Philip Schaff (1901).[29]
  • Translation made by Kazan Theological Academy (published from 1873 to 1909) – a seriously corrupted translation of the Acts of the Councils into Russian.[30][31]
  • Polish translation of Ecumenical councils, by Teresa Wnętrzak, Arkadiusz Baron and Henryk Pietras, vol. 1 (2001), Wydawnictwo WAM, ISBN 8370979289.[32]
  • A relatively new Vatican's translation (2004) into Italian language.[33] Publishers in Vatican mistakenly thought[34] that they made the first translation of the Acts into European languages.[35]
  • The new (2016) Russian version of the Acts of the Council is a revised version of the translation made by Kazan Theological Academy, specifying the cases of corruption by the Orthodox translators.[36] There are several dozens of such cases, some of them are critical.[37]
  • Price, Richard, ed. (2018a). The acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Vol. 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781802071023.
  • Price, Richard, ed. (2018b). The acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Vol. 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781786941275.

References

  1. 1.Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy — Authoritative pastoral norms on sacred images, their placement and veneration, the education of the faithful, and the correction of superstition or improper practice
  2. 2.Benedict XVI on Saint John Damascene — Papal catechesis on John Damascene's defense of images, the goodness of matter, the distinction of worship and veneration, relics, and the sacramental economy
  3. 3.Lumen Gentium, 22–25 — Dogmatic constitution on the episcopal college with and under the Roman Pontiff, the Church's supreme teaching authority, infallibility, and the assent owed to authentic doctrine
  4. 4.Code of Canon Law, canons 337–341 — Current Catholic law on the supreme authority of the college of bishops, papal convocation and confirmation, and the conditions under which ecumenical conciliar decrees bind
  5. 5.Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Council of Nicaea — Historical Catholic account of Byzantine iconoclasm, Irene and Tarasios, the failed 786 assembly, sessions at Nicaea, papal involvement, definition, and western reception
  6. 6.Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils — The critical introduction, conciliar sessions, definition on sacred images, anathemas, and twenty-two disciplinary canons of Nicaea II; English translation and critical introduction based on Norman Tanner's edition of the conciliar texts and their manuscript tradition
  7. 7.Saint John Paul II, Duodecimum Saeculum — Apostolic letter for the council's twelfth centenary on iconoclasm, the Incarnation, ecclesial Tradition, papal reception, the Carolingian dispute, and sacred art
  8. 8.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1159–1162 — Current Catholic synthesis of Nicaea II on liturgical images, the Incarnation, the relation of image and prototype, veneration, proclamation, and the harmony of signs
  9. 9.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2129–2132 — Moral teaching distinguishing the biblical prohibition of idols from Christian veneration of images after the visible Incarnation of the Son of God
  10. 10.[10.2]Gibbon, p. 1693.
  11. 11.Nicalaides 2014, p. 77.
  12. 12.[12.2][12.3]Auzépy 2008, p. 288.
  13. 13.Council of Hieria, Canon 19, "If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!" http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754.asp
  14. 14.Treadgold 1997, p. 388.
  15. 15.Auzépy 2008, pp. 287–288.
  16. 16.[16.2]Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 178.
  17. 17.Hussey, J.M. (2011). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 47. ISBN 9780199582761.
  18. 18.Radecki, Francisco; Radecki, Dominic (2004). Tumultuous Times: The Twenty General Councils of the Catholic Church and Vatican II and Its Aftermath. Wayne, Mich.: St. Joseph's Media. p. 73. ISBN 9780971506107.
  19. 19.Gibbon, p. 1693.
  20. 20."NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org.
  21. 21.McCormick 2008, p. 416.
  22. 22.Noble, Thomas (2013). Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. USA: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0812222562.
  23. 23.Nelson 2019, pp. 289–290.
  24. 24.Hussey 1986, pp. 49–50.
  25. 25.cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.11
  26. 26.[26.2][26.3][26.4][26.5]Škegro, Ante. The Sarnian diocese (Sarniensis Ecclesia) (PDF).
  27. 27.[27.2][27.3][27.4]Basić, Ivan (2018). New evidence for the re-establishment of the Adriatic dioceses in the late eighth century. Oxford: Routledge. pp. 261–287. ISBN 978-1-138-22594-7.
  28. 28.The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787, in which the Worship of Images was Established: With Copious Notes from the "Caroline Books", Compiled by Order of Charlemagne for Its Confutation. W.E. Painter. 1850.
  29. 29.Percival, Henry R. (1900). The Seven ecumenical councils of the undivided church : their canons and dogmatic decrees, together with the canons of all the local synods which have received ecumenical acceptance. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. New York :, Oxford : Scribners, Parker.
  30. 30.See: http://www.knigafund.ru/books/12281/read Archived 2016-10-26 at the Wayback Machine
  31. 31."Деяния Вселенских Соборов, Том 7 - читать, скачать". azbyka.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2025-08-05.
  32. 32.Kucharski, Gerard (2005-06-30). "Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych. Tekst grecki, łaciński, polski, t. I (325-787), 2002". Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne (in Polish). 57 (1): 401–406. doi:10.14746/cph.2005.1.21. ISSN 2720-2186.
  33. 33.Giuliano (2014-03-15). "«Atti del Concilio Niceno secondo ecumenico settimo» - iconecristiane.it" (in Italian). Retrieved 2025-08-05.
  34. 34.See: N. Tanner, "Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo, Tomi I–III, introduzione e traduzione di Pier Giorgio Di Domenico, saggio encomiastico di Crispino Valenziano", in "Gregorianum", N. 86/4, Rome, 2005, p. 928.
  35. 35.Catholic Church, Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004) ISBN 9788820976491
  36. 36.Firsov, Evgeniĭ Vasilʹevich (2016). Акты Второго Никейского (Седьмого Вселенского) собора (787 г.). ISBN 9785446908912.
  37. 37."Акты Второго Никейского - Седьмого Вселенского - собора - 787 г - Евгений Фирсов". esxatos.com. Retrieved 2025-08-05.