"An empire is always weakened that suddenly reverses ancient tradition, and begins persecution of those who hold to them, especially with a loss of public trust in elite institutions. This period not only divided the Byzantine Church but weakened the empire’s political unity at a crucial and dangerous time." This is certainly reminiscent of the current situation in Church and State.
Leo III and the iconoclasts argued that the loss of most of the Empire to Islam was God's punishment for idolatry. Beating back the Muslim siege of 717-19 also gave him clout to rally popular support to the iconoclasm. So much so that the most effective iconodule writers were outside of the Emperor's grasp. On the other hand, his son Constantine went too far and made the iconodules more sympathetic. He also wasn't as successful as his father. In New Rome, every crisis was religious--the people rejected any interpretation which excluded the spiritual.
"Leo had ended a long period of dynastic struggle and political chaos, and established the Isaurian dynasty. He also led successful campaigns against the Umayyad Caliphate, but not without heavy loss of territory, including the fall of such ancient Christian centres as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Christian Egypt. "
NB: These territories had been lost decades earlier under prior emperors, after the Empire had already been much weakened by a prolonged war with Persia. Jerusalem and Antioch fell in 637, under Emperor Heraclius. Alexandria was lost for good in 646. They still would hold what is today northern Algeria and Tunisia until about 700, which along with Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica kept them in continuous contact with Rome until the 740s.
"There is a further implied denial of the sacraments, which always have a material component. If matter cannot convey the divine, this implies doubts about the validity of the sacraments themselves. This can lead to an implied dualism that separates the spiritual and material worlds in a way that is inconsistent with Christ's redemptive work."
You can see this being played out in the push for women priests.
Thank you for this very well written explanation of iconoclasm, which certainly has implications for our times, sadly. Will you eventually bring together these posts into a pdf on the subject? Dang, history keeps repeating itself...
"An empire is always weakened that suddenly reverses ancient tradition, and begins persecution of those who hold to them, especially with a loss of public trust in elite institutions. This period not only divided the Byzantine Church but weakened the empire’s political unity at a crucial and dangerous time." This is certainly reminiscent of the current situation in Church and State.
well spotted
Yes, I see the immediate application to our current situation.
Leo III and the iconoclasts argued that the loss of most of the Empire to Islam was God's punishment for idolatry. Beating back the Muslim siege of 717-19 also gave him clout to rally popular support to the iconoclasm. So much so that the most effective iconodule writers were outside of the Emperor's grasp. On the other hand, his son Constantine went too far and made the iconodules more sympathetic. He also wasn't as successful as his father. In New Rome, every crisis was religious--the people rejected any interpretation which excluded the spiritual.
"Leo had ended a long period of dynastic struggle and political chaos, and established the Isaurian dynasty. He also led successful campaigns against the Umayyad Caliphate, but not without heavy loss of territory, including the fall of such ancient Christian centres as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Christian Egypt. "
NB: These territories had been lost decades earlier under prior emperors, after the Empire had already been much weakened by a prolonged war with Persia. Jerusalem and Antioch fell in 637, under Emperor Heraclius. Alexandria was lost for good in 646. They still would hold what is today northern Algeria and Tunisia until about 700, which along with Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica kept them in continuous contact with Rome until the 740s.
This Accord with my understanding of the history as well. The wars with Persia did greatly weaken the Empire.
"There is a further implied denial of the sacraments, which always have a material component. If matter cannot convey the divine, this implies doubts about the validity of the sacraments themselves. This can lead to an implied dualism that separates the spiritual and material worlds in a way that is inconsistent with Christ's redemptive work."
You can see this being played out in the push for women priests.
BTW An excellent summary. Well done @HILARYWHITE
An excellent summary @HilaryWhite, and very helpful for an ongoing discussion I am involved in with some close Protestant friends.
Thank you for this very well written explanation of iconoclasm, which certainly has implications for our times, sadly. Will you eventually bring together these posts into a pdf on the subject? Dang, history keeps repeating itself...