By Fr. George Dorbarakis
We should first recall that the Ecumenical Synods constitute the highest and most important means available to the Church of Christ, in order to express and formulate its faith and life, to condemn any attempt to alter this faith and life, that is, heresy, as well as to determine the practical framework of its course. The expression of faith, when of course the occasion is given by the appearance of a heresy, in which case the faith is at stake – something that reveals that the ecumenical synod, although institutionally guaranteed, constitutes an extraordinary and charismatic event – is done with terms or dogmas, while the determination of the practical framework of life is done with the canons. In simple words, an ecumenical synod constitutes the mouth of the Church, which is why its decisions are absolutely binding on every member of it, which means that with the obedience of the member, his communion with the Church is kept alive, and therefore further, communion with Christ Himself and His Holy Apostles is kept alive. For certainly the struggle of the Fathers who constitute the ecumenical synod is how to present what the Church lives: Christ and His Spirit. In fact, where the faithful people, clergy and laity, diagnose that the synod did not express what the Apostles preached, there they protest and refuse obedience, and in this sense the faithful people are ultimately considered the guardians of the Orthodox faith.
The hymnographer records the above truth also for the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod. “You became accurate guardians of Apostolic traditions, O Holy Fathers.” Their struggle was how to remain in the accuracy of the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers before them. And for this reason, the first thing they did at the Synod was to first condemn Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches and the other previous heretical leaders. “Having dogmatized in an orthodox manner the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, you have synodically condemned the blasphemy of Arius. With this, having also refuted Macedonius the Spirit-fighter, you condemned Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, as well as Sabellius and Severus, the Headless one.” How directly this is seen from the fact that certain hymns are exact repetitions of the Service of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod! One thinks at first hearing that some mistake has been made: “Having assembled the entire science of the soul, and having deliberated with the divine Spirit, the Holy Fathers divinely inscribed the heavenly and sacred Symbol.” And yet! Such is the conviction that the Fathers of the Seventh Synod are on the same path as those of the First Synod, that it is as if the present is “erased” and the past is heard as the present. The identity of the faith of all the Fathers at their peak.
What is the heresy that the Seventh Ecumenical Synod condemned and which summarized the previous heresies? Iconoclasm, opposition to icons, that is, the denial of the possibility of depicting Christ. Because this denial meant that Christ was not a real and true man, yet He appeared as a man, therefore iconoclasm continued and perpetuated in another way Monophysitism, or from another aspect Nestorianism. In other words, iconoclasm constituted a Christological heresy. So while the polemic against icons seemed “logical” - not to fall into idolatry - in essence it was a denial of Christ, which means that the acceptance of images of Christ constituted the most blatant proclamation of faith in His incarnation. “For this reason, the Church, holding the true faith, embraces the image of Christ’s incarnation.” And of course it is understood that the depiction of Christ referred to the description of His human nature and not His divine nature. The divine is indeed not depicted, which is why any attempt at a pictorial rendering of the Holy Trinity is not within Orthodox frameworks. The Holy Synod even mentioned the saying of Basil the Great, which was also used by Saint John of Damascus, the theologian of icons, that “the honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype,” in order to emphasize that it is not the wood or the color of the icon that is honored, but the person to whom it refers. And finally it is understood that the icons of the Panagia and the Saints were accepted, because the Saints are the friends of Christ par excellence, therefore by honoring them we ultimately honor Christ.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
