The Council of Frankfurt Part 2: Iconopraxism into the Iconoclast Controversy

 The Council of Frankfurt (794 AD) stands as a pivotal moment in church history, rejecting the decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) and asserting a theological position that preserved biblical worship. While the Byzantine church sought to enshrine icon veneration as essential to Christian piety, the Frankish church, under Charlemagne, condemned this practice as erroneous and dangerous. The necessity of the Council of Frankfurt is evident in its defense of true Christian doctrine against the idolatrous tendencies affirmed at Nicaea II. By critiquing both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, this essay will demonstrate that the Frankish theological stance was superior, biblically grounded, and in continuity with the true teaching of the Church Fathers. Furthermore, it will assert the primacy of Frankfurt over Nicaea II, showing that Frankfurt represents the correct articulation of Christian worship over the aberrations of Byzantine iconodulism.

Historical Context of the Iconoclast Controversy

The Iconoclast Controversy, which spanned the 8th and 9th centuries, was a heated theological and political conflict within the Byzantine Empire over the role of religious images. Emperor Leo III initiated iconoclasm in 726 AD, citing concerns that veneration of images had devolved into idolatry. His son, Constantine V, reinforced this policy, holding the Council of Hieria in 754, which condemned the use of icons. However, after Constantine V’s death, the empress regent Irene reversed iconoclasm and convened the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 to restore icon veneration.

The Heresy of Nicaea II

The Second Council of Nicaea was convened under the authority of Empress Irene to address the Iconoclastic Controversy, which had divided the Eastern Church. The council declared that images of Christ, Mary, and the saints should receive veneration (douleia), while insisting that only God receives worship (latreia). The Frankish church, however, rejected this artificial distinction, recognizing that veneration of images inevitably led to idolatry.

Biblical and Patristic Critique of Iconodulism

The biblical rejection of idolatry is clear in Exodus 20:4-5: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,” The early Church Fathers also warned against the dangers of image veneration:

  • St. Augustine wrote, “For images are more likely to mislead an unhappy soul, since they have a mouth and speak not, eyes and see not” (De Vera Religione, 55). Augustine maintained that true worship must be directed to God alone.

  • Gregory the Great, often misrepresented by iconodules, stated, “Images are made for instruction, not for adoration” (Epistle to Serenus of Marseilles, Book IX, Letter 105).

  • Epiphanius of Salamis explicitly condemned images in worship, writing, “I found a painted image of Christ or one of the saints in a church. I tore it down and ordered it to be destroyed” (Panarion 27:6).

Thus, Nicaea II contradicted both Scripture and Patristic tradition by institutionalizing image veneration.

The Necessity of the Council of Frankfurt

Recognizing the dangerous theological drift of Nicaea II, Charlemagne convened the Council of Frankfurt to correct this error and establish a truly biblical approach to worship. The council declared that Nicaea II was erroneous and that images should not be venerated in any form.

The Libri Carolini: A Theological Refutation of Nicaea II

Commissioned under Charlemagne, the Libri Carolini provided the most detailed Frankish critique of iconodulism. It argued:

  1. Images have no inherent sanctity – “It is ridiculous to assert that the nature of wood and paint can become sacred” (Libri Carolini, Book 2, Chapter 27).

  2. True veneration belongs to God alone – “No created thing, whether in heaven or on earth, deserves to receive honor as though it were divine” (Libri Carolini, Book 3, Chapter 17).

  3. The Church Fathers did not support iconodulism – “The ancient doctors of the church never prescribed the veneration of images, nor did the apostles teach such a practice” (Libri Carolini, Book 4, Chapter 14).

The Libri Carolini demonstrated the Franks’ deep theological engagement and their commitment to scriptural orthodoxy. It also highlights the role of secular rulers, such as Charlemagne, in defending and preserving the true faith against theological corruption.

The Role of Charlemagne in Defending Orthodoxy

Charlemagne saw himself as the rightful defender of Christian doctrine and took an active role in ensuring orthodoxy was maintained. His sponsorship of the Council of Frankfurt was not merely a political move but a reflection of his belief that secular rulers had a duty to uphold true theology. The council's rejection of Nicaea II was, in this sense, not only a theological correction but also an assertion of Charlemagne’s authority over religious matters in the West, opposing the growing Byzantine influence.

Iconopraxism: The Frankish Middle Ground

The Frankish stance on religious images can be described as Iconopraxism—a middle-ground position between Iconoclasm (image destruction) and Iconodulism (image veneration). Iconopraxists accept the presence of religious imagery but deny that it should be venerated or used as a means of accessing divine grace. This view maintains that images serve an educational purpose but should not receive reverence, even in a secondary sense.

Characteristics of Iconopraxism:

  • Permits religious images for instruction but rejects any practice resembling veneration.

  • Opposes both Iconoclasm (image destruction) and Iconodulism (image veneration).

  • Insists that worship must remain spiritual, directed to God alone (John 4:24).

  • Rejects the belief that icons mediate divine presence or possess inherent sanctity.

By adopting an Iconopraxist stance, I believe that the Council of Frankfurt preserved a biblical and patristic approach to worship, avoiding both the superstition of icon veneration and the excesses of Byzantine Iconoclasm.

Critique of Catholic and Orthodox Iconodulism

Both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have upheld Nicaea II’s decrees, maintaining that icons are necessary for Christian piety. However, their theological justifications are flawed.

  • Catholicism later expanded the role of images, integrating them into indulgences and superstitious devotional practices.

  • Eastern Orthodoxy falsely equates icon veneration with the Incarnation, arguing that Christ’s humanity allows for His depiction. However, this ignores the Second Commandment and contradicts early Christian practice.

The Frankish church rightly understood that the essence of Christian worship is spiritual, centered on the Word and sacraments rather than physical representations.

The Primacy of the Council of Frankfurt Over Nicaea II

The Council of Frankfurt, not Nicaea II, represents the true Christian position on images. Unlike Nicaea II, which was shaped by Byzantine political pressures and theological distortions, Frankfurt upheld the unbroken biblical and Patristic tradition of rejecting idolatry.

  1. Frankfurt corrected the errors of Nicaea II – It provided a theologically sound refutation grounded in Scripture.

  2. Frankfurt was more representative of Western Christendom – It included a broader range of bishops not under Byzantine control.

  3. Frankfurt was necessary to preserve biblical worship – Without its rejection of iconodulism, the medieval church would have drifted further into superstition.

For these reasons, Frankfurt must be recognized as authoritative over Nicaea II.

Conclusion

The Council of Frankfurt’s rejection of Nicaea II was necessary to preserve true Christian worship. By defending biblical truth and the teachings of the Church Fathers, the Frankish church stood against the heresy of iconodulism. While Catholic and Orthodox traditions have continued to uphold Nicaea II, history shows that Frankfurt provides the correct theological stance on the matter. As Christians today seek to recover biblical, Christ-centered worship, the Council of Frankfurt serves as a model of faithfulness against theological corruption. It remains the true and authoritative standard in the debate over images, standing above the errors of Nicaea II.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Justification for a Post-Tribulational Rapture

 The debate surrounding the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation is one of the most contentious within Christian eschatology. The pre-tribulation rapture, which posits that believers will be taken up before a period of intense suffering, has gained significant popularity, especially in evangelical circles. However, a growing number of Christians are turning towards the post-tribulation rapture belief, which asserts that the church will endure the tribulation and that the rapture will coincide with Christ's second coming. This essay aims to justify the post-tribulation belief through a comprehensive examination of scriptural evidence and theological reasoning. Historical Context Early Church Beliefs The early Christian church predominantly held a belief in a singular second coming of Christ, which would follow a period of tribulation. This perspective is evident in the writings of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who described a future tribulation period that w...
Read more

Molinism: A Middle Ground between Calvinism and Arminianism

 Molinism, named after the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, offers a compelling framework for reconciling divine foreknowledge, human free will, and predestination. Unlike Calvinism and Arminianism, Molinism introduces the concept of "middle knowledge" (scientia media) to bridge the gap between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Molinism Explained Molinism revolves around the concept of middle knowledge, which posits that God knows not only everything that could happen (natural knowledge) and everything that will happen (free knowledge) but also what every free creature would do in any given circumstance (middle knowledge). This allows God to actualize a world in which His divine will is accomplished through the genuinely free choices of individuals. Key Aspects of Molinism Middle Knowledge : God’s knowledge of all potential decisions individuals could make in any circumstance, allowing for genuine human freedom. Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom :...
Read more

Conditional Security: Faith as the Anchor of Salvation

 The doctrine of Conditional Security asserts that salvation, while a gift of grace through faith, can be forfeited through a subsequent loss of faith. This perspective acknowledges the dynamic nature of faith, emphasizing that the same faith that initiates salvation must be continually nurtured and sustained. This version of Conditional Security posits that a believer can lose their salvation only in the same way they received it—through faith, or more specifically, through a lack of faith. The Foundation of Salvation: Faith Salvation is intricately tied to faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 states, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast." This passage highlights that faith is the conduit through which the grace of salvation is received. Faith, therefore, is not merely an initial step but the foundation upon which the entire Christian life is built. The Possibility of Aposta...
Read more