Friday, November 10, 2023

Michael Lofton (Catholic apologist) on the Late Development of Icon Veneration

  

It is undeniable that first-century Christians were not bowing down to icons. If they were, this would have undoubtedly been the most frequently used criticism the Jews, who took the Old Testament’s proscription of “graven image[s]” (Exod. 20:4) seriously, would have leveled against them. Yet there is no evidence of such criticism, let alone evidence of icon veneration among the early Christians. However, as noted above the framework for such things is certainly apostolic. It is in this sense that the Second Councils of Nicaea can say. (Michael Lofton, Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2023], 79)

 

. . . the practice of issuing indulgences is from the early second millennium, but it is rooted in concepts from the first. Does this pose a problem for Catholicism? No more than the liturgical veneration of icons (most likely not a first century-practice) . . . (Ibid., 155)

 

Let’s return to a concept we covered in the last objection: the liturgical veneration of icons. There is seemingly no evidence that Jesus or the apostles established the practice. For instance, Orthodox priest and author Fr. John Anthony McGuckin notes the early Chruch’s general aversion to images:

 

Christianity in the earliest period seems to have shared the aversion common in Judaism (though not an absolute aversion as is demonstrated by the highly decorated second-century synagogue at Dura Europos) to painted representations in religious contexts. The Hellenistic world was so thoroughly immersed in art as a religious medium that both the synagogue and the church turned form it as a part of their apologia against false cult, and Christian thinkers argued instead for the intellectual, spiritual, and moral mimesis of God as the only valid depictions of the divine on earth. (See the entry under “Art” in John Anthony McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], 32)

 

Fr. Andrew Louth chimes in by saying the later doctrinal development of icon veneration cannot be found in the fourth-century Fathers. (Louth, “Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodoxy Theology?,” 47) Orthodox priest and author Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck echoes this same sentiment: “One will not find in the early Church any clear exposition of the current Eastern Orthodox theology of icons.” (Cleenewerck, His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, 43)

 

In fact, veneration of icons—as practiced at the time of its dogmatic definition—would have been a perfect practice for the Jews to point to in order to condemn early Christians, if it had existed in such a form in the first century. In the same way that early Christians were accused of being cannibals for their view on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would certainly have incurred charges of idolatry for this practice. Moreover, some of the early Christians seemed to have held a critical view of the liturgical use of images, since they were still combatting pagan idolatry. Yet the concepts that would give rise to the liturgical veneration of icons are certainly apostolic. (Ibid., 158-59)

 

Further Reading:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons