Nicaea II Reconsidered: Forgery, Contextonomy, and the Quest for Ecumenical Legitimacy

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xh2p7fENtSGEzVS4I1LeGDZ2HMVGKPy5/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), traditionally recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council in both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, remains a focal point of theological and ecclesial controversy, particularly concerning its decrees on the veneration of icons. While the Council affirmed icon veneration as a practice rooted in apostolic tradition, this claim has long been rejected by most Protestant traditions, who argue that the evidence marshaled in favor of such a view is historically and theologically unconvincing. The 2020 English edition of the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea by Richard Price offers a fresh opportunity to reassess the Council’s claims with scholarly precision. Price is a Professor of the History of Christianity at Heythrop College in London and Priest within the Archdiocese of Westminster. And yet, despite Price’s own Roman Catholic commitments and general acceptance of Nicaea II, his work furnishes substantial criticisms of the Council’s historical methodology and raises serious questions about its ecumenical authority. Following the helpful work of Andrew Messmer, this essay critically evaluates two major aspects of Nicaea II: first, its use and misuse of historical sources; second, its questionable claim to ecumenical status.

I. Historical Methodology and Misuse of Patristic Sources

The Council of Nicaea II presented itself as reaffirming the faith once delivered to the saints by appealing to the consensus of the Church Fathers. However, a close examination of its proceedings reveals at least seven major methodological errors that call into question the reliability of its historical claims.

1. Pseudepigraphic Citations as Genuine Testimony

Perhaps the most egregious methodological flaw was the Council's repeated citation of forged patristic works as if they were authentic. The Acts include numerous references to supposed writings of John Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, among others, which modern scholarship has demonstrated to be pseudonymous. Price notes that once these spurious works are excluded, the earliest credible support for icon veneration in the patristic corpus dates no earlier than the sixth or seventh century. Consequently, as Price concedes, the iconoclast position—that icon veneration lacks apostolic and patristic pedigree—"would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct" (Price, 43).

2. Anachronistic Assumptions About Doctrinal Continuity

Nicaea II assumed without demonstration that icon veneration in the fourth and fifth centuries must reflect the practice of the earlier Church. Yet Price observes that the Council made no attempt to prove icon veneration from pre-Nicene sources and offers no citations earlier than Athanasius (Price, 39). This assumption of continuity, though perhaps understandable in its historical context, is methodologically indefensible.

3. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Genuine Texts

Even where Nicaea II cited authentic patristic sources, it often wrenched them from their original context. A paradigmatic case is Basil of Caesarea’s statement that “the honor paid to the image passes over to the archetype” (On the Holy Spirit, 18.45.19–20), which referred to Christ as the image of the Father, not to painted icons. The Council repurposed this theological affirmation of Christ's deity into a justification for icon veneration, an interpretive leap that lacks exegetical warrant (Price, 45).

4. Dismissal of Contrary Evidence

Rather than grappling honestly with counter-testimony, the Council dismissed iconoclastic sources as heretical or forged. For example, it rejected Epiphanius of Salamis’s clear condemnation of images by labeling the relevant letter a forgery, despite its internal coherence and authenticity (Price, 432, 498). Similarly, the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea were brushed aside due to his association with Arianism, ignoring the substantive theological critique embedded in his Letter to Constantia (Price, 403–406).

5. Erasure of the Iconoclastic Tradition

Nicaea II presented iconodulism as the unanimous tradition of the Church, omitting any acknowledgment of a longstanding stream of opposition to image veneration. Ernst Kitzinger documents persistent resistance to religious images from the fourth to the ninth century, including voices such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Council of Elvira, and others (Kitzinger, 86–133). By suppressing this record, the Council gave a distorted picture of ecclesiastical consensus.

6. Confusion Between Presence and Veneration

The mere existence of images in early Christian settings does not constitute evidence for their veneration. Figures such as Gregory the Great clearly distinguished between the didactic use of images and the practice of veneration. Yet Nicaea II conflated these categories, interpreting the presence of images in churches and catacombs as implicit approval for their cultic use (Price, 158).

7. Fallacious Argument from Silence

Finally, the Council committed a fundamental logical error by interpreting the absence of icon condemnation in earlier councils as evidence of their approval (Price, 460). But using such fallacious reasoning would validate innumerable unmentioned practices as implicitly endorsed by ecumenical councils.

II. Questioning the Ecumenical Status of Nicaea II

Beyond its flawed historiography, Nicaea II’s claim to ecumenical authority suffers from four significant weaknesses.

1. Deficient Continuity with the Catholic Tradition

The authority of an ecumenical council depends, in part, on its fidelity to the consensus of the Church Fathers and previous councils. As Price notes, Nicaea II’s innovations diverge from this standard: “The prime criterion of ecumenical authority remained fidelity to the tradition” (Price, 50). The Council of Frankfurt (794) explicitly rejected Nicaea II for introducing novel doctrines and failing to adhere to patristic teaching (Price, 72).

2. Incomplete Representation of the Pentarchy

Though Nicaea II claimed the participation of all five patriarchates, only Rome and Constantinople were truly represented. The bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem neither attended nor sent legates, likely due to Muslim control of those sees. The invocation of the Pentarchy was thus more symbolic than actual, undermining the Council’s ecumenical standing (Price, 198–205).

3. Exclusion of the Western Church

The Council did not invite Western bishops beyond the two Roman legates. This exclusion is particularly conspicuous given Charlemagne’s rising influence and interest in ecclesiastical affairs. The Council of Frankfurt objected that no synod could be deemed ecumenical without broad ecclesial consultation (Price, 72). The effective absence of Western participation raises serious doubts about Nicaea II’s universality.

4. Delayed and Contested Reception

Unlike other ecumenical councils, Nicaea II met with immediate resistance and only slowly gained recognition. In the East, the iconoclast Council of Hiereia (754) initially held sway and was only definitively overturned in 843 with the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” In the West, the Council of Frankfurt rejected Nicaea II’s decrees, and Rome did not affirm its ecumenical status until 880, arguably for geopolitical reasons (Price, 75). Even then, acceptance remained largely confined to Rome and Constantinople. The Council was excluded from Eastern canonical collections for centuries and did not enter mainstream Western canon law until the twelfth century (Price, 204, 76).

Conclusion

The Council of Nicaea II fails to establish its central dogma, namely the veneration of icons, as either apostolic or patristic. Its use of forgeries, misinterpretation of sources, dismissal of contrary evidence, and methodological fallacies render its historical case untenable. Additionally, its ecumenical claims are severely compromised by its lack of universal participation, its rejection by large portions of the church universal, and its delayed reception.

Although Nicaea II did attempt to distinguish between veneration (proskunēsis) and worship (latreia), this distinction, though important, does not resolve the fundamental issue of historical legitimacy. If icon veneration is to be defended, it must rest upon a sound biblical and theological basis, not upon the dubious historical arguments of Nicaea II.

As such, for Protestants committed to sola Scriptura and the integrity of patristic witness, the decrees of Nicaea II remain unconvincing. Nevertheless, further dialogue is warranted, especially on the biblical and theological dimensions of the debate. Historical tradition and ecclesial authority must be brought into conversation with Scripture, and all sides must strive for fidelity to the truth of God revealed in Christ.

For Further Study 

Hoskin, Matthew J. J. “Nicaea II, Protestants, and Icons,” Ad Fontes, January 20, 2023, accessed July 21, 2025. https://adfontesjournal.com/church-history/nicaea-ii-protestants-and-icons/.

Kitzinger, Ernst. “The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 83–150.

Messmer, Andrew. 2022. “Nicaea II: Some Criticisms.” Evangelical Focus, February 6, 2022. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://evangelicalfocus.com/feature/15309/nicaea-ii-some-criticisms.

Noble, Thomas F. X. Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2009.

Pocock, J. G. A. “Nicaea and Its Aftermath.” In Barbarism and Religion, 93–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2015.

Price, Richard. The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. 75. Liverpool: Liverpool University, 2020.

Young Frances M., with Andrew Teal.

From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.