Editing Second Council of Nicaea (section)

==Proceedings==
{{more citations needed section|date=November 2021}}
{{unordered list
|''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 31:34, but especially from a series of passages of the [[Church Father]]s;<ref name="Gibbon, p.1693"/> 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 [[Council of Hieria|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.
[[File:Ayasofya Iznik 902.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Hagia Sophia, Iznik|Hagia Sophia]] of Nicaea, where the Council took place; [[Iznik]], Turkey.]]
[[File:İznik Ayasofya Camii.jpg|thumb|Hagia Sophia, İznik]]
It was determined that
{{blockquote|As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]], the [[Mary, the mother of Jesus|Virgin Mary]], the holy [[angel]]s, as well as those of the [[saint]]s 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 [[canon law|canons]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-167.htm#P10346_1983930|title=NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils – Christian Classics Ethereal Library|website=www.ccel.org}}</ref> drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the [[bible|scripture]]s 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.