In our former two posts (found here and here), we saw that Protestant iconoclasts agree with the early fathers and even with the apocryphal book of Wisdom, chapter 14 on the origins and usage of material objects in cultic or worship practices. We saw that iconoclasm refers, according to Noah Webster, to “a name which Catholics give to those who reject the use of images in religious worship.” We saw that, among others, those who advocated for spiritual worship, and “reject the use of images in religious worship” included fathers such as Chrysostom, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Lactantius, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Augustine, and others.
We saw that the origins of idolatry, according to Wisdom 14, Chrysostom, and others, was in the making of icons of dearly departed loved ones, to have them near in memory. Such icons of the dearly departed eventually led to honoring those images, and finally to religious gestures and worship being offered to those images.
We saw that the resounding testimony of the first centuries of the Christian church is that “where an image is, there is no religion,” to quote from Lactantius, Emperor Constantine’s friend. We saw that the religious or cultic use of icons or other material representations, to which proskunesis was offered, was ridiculed by the fathers as a “senseless custom,” that arose from “weakness of soul,” and is best described as spiritual whoredom.
In this post, we will hear especially from the pillars of orthodoxy (Athanasius the Great and two of the Cappadocians) regarding the only lawful object of religious honor, by which they exclude all creatures whatsoever. In fact, according to these pillars of orthodoxy, when the Arian offered veneration (proskunesis) to Jesus of Nazareth under the erroneous opinion that he was a mere creature, they were idolaters, since proskunesis, when offered to any creature, is flat idolatry.
What the pillars of orthodoxy condemned as a detestable act (proskunesis of creatures) would later be foisted on the entire Christian Church as conciliar orthodoxy: veneration, or proskunesis of creatures. However, the fathers, like Protestant iconoclasts, understood that religious veneration of creatures is absolutely forbidden by the natural law, as reiterated in the 10 Commandments, which specifically prohibits the making or offering religious veneration to images, or to any creature whatsoever.
The argument runs as follows:
1. The only object of lawful proskunesis, or religious veneration is God;
2. The Son of God is an object of lawful proskunesis, or religious veneration;
3. Therefore, the Son of God is God.
Point 1 is the indubitable teaching of the first five or six centuries of orthodox Christian fathers. The Scriptures are so clear on this point that the fathers had little difficulty in coming to this conclusion. Later fathers were under the power of an entirely different (or anti-Christian) spirit than their predecessors. The other posts in this series delve into the fathers’ critiques of heathenism on this point, and a defense of Christianity for its aniconic practices and attitudes. My next post will give a particular instance of this in Origen’s response to Celsus, a Neo-platonic critic of Christian doctrine and worship.
Point 2 is established by the texts of Scripture, both from Peter and the angel’s refusal of proskunesis, and our Lord’s acceptance of proskunesis from his disciples and from angels.
Point 3 is the good and necessary consequence derived by the orthodox, based upon the Second Commandment’s prohibition of creature worship, especially icons of creatures, and the lawfulness of proskunesis being offered to the Son of God.
If Athanasius or the Cappadocians were of John of Damascus or Nicea II’s opinion, that the glorified spirits of saints in heaven are worthy of proskunesis, then the argument falls to pieces, and is one massive piece of absurdity. But since Athanasius, Gregory Nyssa, and Gregory Nazanzen were aniconic, their argument is air tight.
Nicea II states that “[Icons] are to be accorded greeting and the veneration [proskunesis] of honor [teemaeteekay], not indeed the true worship corresponding to our faith, which pertains to the divine nature alone, but in the same way as this is accorded to the figure of the honourable and life-giving cross, to the holy gospels, and to other sacred offerings.”
What we shall find, however, is that this veneration of honor is condemned by the orthodox fathers as wicked idolatry, and cannot be distinguished from “the true worship… which pertains to the divine nature alone.” For Athanasius and the Cappadocians, “veneration” cannot be directed to any creature without idolatry. Without further ado, here are source quotations with noted Greek terms used by these illustrious fathers:
“Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, as being one beyond themselves; and they worship [proskuneitai] Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the Father’s proper Son according to essence. For if He was worshipped [proskuneitah] as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought to worship [proskunein] what excels itself. But this is not the case; for creature does not worship [oo proskuneitai – a direct contradiction of Nicea II] creature, but servant [doulos] Lord [despotaen], and creature God [Theon]. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would worship [proskuneisai] him, saying, ‘I myself also am a man.’ And an Angel, when John would worship [proskuneisai] him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, ‘See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant [soon-doulos], and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God [ton Theon proskuneitai].’ Therefore to God alone [Theou esti monou] appertains worship [proskuneitai – another direct contradiction to Nicea II], and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped [proskunoumenoen – a third direct contradiction of Nicea II], but worship [proskunountone] the Lord [ton Despotaen]. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, ‘Offer not to me, but to God.’ On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped [proskuneitai] even by the Angels; for it is written, ‘Let all the Angels of God worship [proskunsatoesan] Him;’ and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, ‘The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Subeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thy servants [douloi];’ and then, ‘they shall fall down [proskunaesousee] unto thee, and shall make supplication [proseuxountai]unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God.’ And He accepts His disciples’ worship [proskunountas], and certifies them who He is, saying, ‘Call ye Me not Lord and Master? and ye say well, for so I am,’”
Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration 2, Chapter 16, Section 23.
This argument devastates Nicea II: “for creature does not worship [oo proskuneitai] creature, but servant [doulos] Lord [despotaen], and creature God [Theon]”. If proskunesis is offered to a saint in heaven via its icon on earth, such a saint remains a creature. “Creature” is everything not essentially God, whether men in houses of clay upon the earth, the spirits of just men made perfect, or the holy angels in glory.
The Lord Jesus is lawfully offered proskunesis by saints and angels. The holy apostle Peter and the holy angels of God refuse proskunesis, because only God is to be offered religious veneration. Thus, Jesus is proven to be “alone the Father’s proper Son according to essence” by receiving proskunesis. What then are these icons?
Further, in Athanasius’ view, “God alone” is the proper object of proskunesis, not Mary, not saints, not angels, but only such beings as are essentially God, as the Son of God is. As he says, “to God alone [Theou esti monou] appertains worship [proskuneitai], and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped [proskunoumenoen], but worship [proskunountone] the Lord [ton Despotaen].”
Attempting to set these fundamental orthodox truths in some kind of “context,” or to pretend that Nicea II believed the same doctrine as Athanasius is beyond absurd. There can be no contextualization of an absolute negation, such as “God alone,” or “creature does not worship creature.” Athanasius the Great’s doctrine is a direct contradiction of the Gentile vanity, or lying sophism of Nicea II. There can be no proskunesis offered to creatures (especially to icons of creatures!) without idolatry.
And lest it be thought that Athanasius was alone in this opinion, here are the Cappadocians:
“For we have learnt from the mighty utterance of Paul that it is the distinguishing feature of idolatry [eidoelahlatreountone] to worship [sebesthai] and serve [latreuein] the creature [ktisei] more [parah] than the Creator [ktisantah], as well as from David, when He says ‘There shall no new God be in thee: neither shalt thou worship [proskunaeseis] any alien God.’ We use this line and rule to arrive at the discernment of the object of worship [proskunoumenou – a direct contradiction of Nicea II], so as to be convinced that that alone is God which is neither ‘new’ nor ‘alien.’ Since then we have been taught to believe that the Only-begotten God is God, we acknowledge, by our belief that He is God, that He is neither ‘new’ or ‘alien.’ If, then, He is God, He is not ‘new,’ and if He is not new, He is assuredly eternal. Accordingly, neither is the Eternal ‘new,’ nor is He Who is of the Father and in the bosom of the Father and Who has the Father in Himself ‘alien’ from true Deity. Thus he who severs the Son from the nature of the Father either absolutely disallows the worship [proskunaesin] of the Son, that he may not worship [proskunaesae] an alien God, or bows down [sebetai] before an idol [eidoelon – another dicrect contradiction of Nicea II which anathematizes those who refer to offering proskunesis to creatures idolatry], making a creature [ktismah] and not God the object of his worship [proskuhnaeseoes – another direct contradiction of Nicea II], and giving to his idol [eidoeloe] the name of Christ,”
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book 2, Chapter 7.
Eunomius, being an Arian, taught the people to offer proskunesis to Jesus, under the doctrinal construct that the Son of God was a creature. However, as Moses, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, and our Lord Himself, Gregory understood there is only one proper object of proskunesis: The One and Only God, not angels, not saints, neither on earth, nor in heaven.
Gregory defines idolatry to be the offering up of religious rites and services to any other beside (parah) the true God. Gregory knew nothing of the sophistic distinction between dulia and latria, or between veneration and worship, as he used sebesthai, latreuein, and proskunaeseis as synonyms: several different words with overlapping meaning. Whatever is given proskunesis along side the true God is an idol, a foreign god, a novel god. Thus, for Gregory, to offer proskunesis to a creature, even in the name of Christ, is idolatry. Nicea II, therefore, commanding proskunesis to corruptible icons of creatures commands idolatry. It commands proskunesis to creatures, which is the “distinguishing feature of idolatry.” In fact, the passage that Gregory refers to even uses the word icon to describe the species of idolatry by which proskunesis is done (Romans 1:21-25): v.23, “εν ομοιωματι εικονος”.
Note that for the Arian, Jesus is a “deified creature,” perhaps a super-saint, the greatest of all saints, the holiest of all creatures, but still merely a creature. And AS SUCH, if proskunesis were offered to such a super-saint, such a deified creature, even to the holiest of all creatures, then such a “Christ” would be an “idol,” and such a creature would automatically become an “alien god,” since such a heretic would make “a creature and not God the object of his proskunesis.”
And arguing from the greater (the Arian Jesus, a super-saint) to the lesser (Mary, saints, and angels), if to offer proskunesis to the holiest of all saints is idolatry, how much more base idolatry is it to offer proskunesis to lesser saints, such as Mary or Peter in heaven! And if it is a baser idolatry to offer proskunesis to the glorified spirits above, how much more degraded and wicked must it be to offer proskunesis to material images, composed of things that man treads under his feet (as we’ve seen the fathers argue elsewhere)!! Even without an icon of such saints, the proskunesis offered to the holy Virgin in heaven is to make her “an idol” and “an alien god.”
Gregory goes on:
“In the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth we are taught to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If it were right to believe that the Son was created, how was it that the Truth in delivering to us this mystery bade us believe in the Son, and not in the creature? and how is it that the inspired Apostle, himself adoring [proskunown] Christ, lays it down that they who worship [lahtreuontas] the creature besides [para] the Creator are guilty of idolatry [eidololatrein – another direct contradiction to Nicea II]? For, were the Son created, either he would not have worshipped [proskunaesen – another direct contradiction of Nicea II] Him, or he would have refrained from classing those who worship [lahtreuontas] the creature along with idolaters [eidoelolahtrais], lest he himself should appear to be an idolater [eidololatrein], in offering adoration [proskunaesin – another direct contradiction of Nicea II] to the created. But he knew that He Whom he adored was God over all, for so he terms the Son in his Epistle to the Romans. Why then do those who divorce the Son from the essence of the Father, and call Him creature, bestow on Him mockery the fictitious title of Deity, idly conferring on one alien from true Divinity the name of ‘God,’ as they might confer it on Bel or Dagon or the Dragon? Let those, therefore, who affirm that He is created, acknowledge that He is not God at all, that they may be seen to be nothing but Jews in disguise, or, if they confess one who is created to be God, let them not deny that they are idolaters,”
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book 2, Chapter 9.
Not to beat a Nyssian horse too hard, but the holy and apostolic faith entails that idolatry includes proskunesis and lahtria to creatures. Note that these two terms are not to be distinguished by some kind of elaborate distinctions, but were considered by Gregory (as by Scripture) to be synonymous. For Gregory, to offer proskunesis “to the created” is to be an idolater. For Nicea II to fail to affectionately offer proskunesis to the created is to be anathema. Which is “the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth”? Protestant iconoclasts side with Gregory, Paul, Peter, the holy angels, Moses, Athanasius, etc.!
The other Cappadocian Gregory agrees:
“Is there not one rule of piety [eusebayahs] which we have had proposed to us, which we will teach, that we should worship [proskunein] Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, one Godhead and Power in three persons, neither honoring anything above [hupersebontes], nor honoring anything below [hupahsebontes] (that we may imitate such as conduct themselves sensibly in these matters; the former is impossible, the latter is impious [ahsebes]),”
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 22, Chapter 12.
The orthodox rule of piety is that proskunesis is to be directed to the one Undivided Godhead and Power in three Persons. There is none above, nor is there any below. No saints, no queen of heaven, no martyrs, monks, emperors, or deified and dearly departed are to be given any kind of lesser proskunesis!!
It is impossible for religious veneration, or proskunesis to reach above the Holy and Undivided Trinity. It is impious to offer religious veneration to any below the Holy and Undivided Trinity, whether to the Blessed Virgin, the spirits of just men made perfect, martyrs, monks, emperors, or the dearly departed.
Thus, the commanding of religious veneration of any object other than the true God is impiety, idolatry, iniquity, and contrary to “the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth”. Either Athanasius and the Cappadocians were lying, or John of Damascus and Nicea II were. You must choose one or the other; both can’t be correct.
Gregory comments in the spirit of Wisdom 14:
“Others again have worshipped [esebasthaesahn] any chance visible objects, setting up the most beautiful of what they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures [eikonos] and images [plasmatah], at first indeed of their own ancestors — at least, this is the case with the more affectionate and sensual — and honor [timonetaes] the departed with memorials; and afterwards even those of strangers are worshipped by men of a later generation separated froth them by a long interval; through ignorance of the First Nature, and following the traditional [paradohtheisaes] honor [timaes] as lawful and necessary; for usage when confirmed by time was held to be Law. And I think that some who were courtiers of arbitrary power and extolled bodily strength and admired beauty, made a God in time out of him whom they honored, perhaps getting hold of some fable to help on their imposture,”
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 28, Chapter 14.
Although some argue that the condemnation of images and icons in the fathers is only “talking about false gods of the heathen,” such a claim is clearly contrary to the language the fathers use. Note that in Gregory Nazianzen, as all the other fathers, and as in Wisdom 14, the origins of heathenism are generally agreed to be in icons (eikonos) of departed ancestors. These ancestors were honored, then worshipped as gods. Call the idolatry a mere “dulia,” call it by some other name, but the pattern of Wisdom 14 is precisely the pattern of the iconophilia of the seventh, eighth, ninth, and succeeding centuries.
First, the saints and martyrs were honored. Later, images of them were made. Then, those images were offered bowing, incense, kissing, and other acts of cultic veneration. And to offer such traditional honors to the memorials of your ancestors, according to Gregory is to make “a God in time out of him whom they honored.” The histories of the saints and monks are, of course, embellished with such fables imposed upon the people to prop up such foul idolatry.
One final note from Nazianzen:
“And having been first chastened by many means (because his sins were many, whose root of evil sprang up through divers causes and at sundry tithes), by word, by law, by prophets, by benefits, by threats, by plagues, by waters, by fires, by wars, by victories, by defeats, by signs in heaven and signs in the air and in the earth and in the sea, by unexpected changes of men, of cities, of nations (the object of which was the destruction of wickedness), at last he needed a stronger remedy, for his diseases were growing worse; mutual slaughters, adulteries, perjuries, unnatural crimes, and that first and last of all evils, idolatry [eidololahtreiais] and the transfer of worship [proskuneisaeohs – another contradiction of Nicea II] from the Creator to the Creatures,”
Gregory Nazianzen, ORATION 38, Chapter 13.
Here again note that proskunesis which is offered to creatures is defined as idolatry. Since the Holy and Undivided Trinity alone is worthy of all proskunesis, to offer it to creatures is to rob God of His due. It is impious, idolatrous, heretical, and contrary to the tradition delivered to us by Truth itself, God in the flesh.
For the Arian to offer proskunesis to his “Christ” as a super-saint, as the holiest of creatures, is idolatry. Much more is it idolatry to offer proskunesis to all “lesser gods,” such as the Virgin Mary, the saints, angels or archangels?!
Genuine apostolic, orthodox, and catholic faith never teaches servant to worship servant, or creature to worship creature, but servant to worship Lord, and creature to worship God. This is the orthodox Nicene faith! This is the faith of the Cappadocians! This is the faith of Paul, of Peter, of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God-Man! This is the holy tradition of the fathers. Nicea II, is contrary to Scripture, contrary to common sense, contrary to the Moral Law, and contrary to the traditions of the fathers, “for creature does not worship creature, but servant Lord, and creature God.”
