According to Nicaea II, would the Assyrian Church of the East be counted as heretical for their view on icons?

### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says: > Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added] Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *). In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared: > We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. and in another place: > Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise. ### My question **Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively? If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.