Athenagoras of Athens (133-190) was an early Church Father. In his A Plea For the Christians, addressed to
the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, we read the
following:
Chapter XVIII.--The
Gods Themselves Have Been Created, as the Poets Confess.
But, since it is
affirmed by some that, although these are only images, yet there exist gods in
honour of whom they are made; and that the supplications and sacrifices
presented to the images are to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to
the gods; and that there is not any other way of coming to them, for
"'Tis hard for
man To meet in presence visible a God;"
and whereas, in proof
that such is the fact, they adduce the energies possessed by certain images,
let us examine into the power attached to their names. And I would beseech you,
greatest of emperors, before I enter on this discussion, to be indulgent to me
while I bring forward true considerations; for it is not my design to show the
fallacy of idols, but, by disproving the calumnies vented against us, to offer
a reason for the course of life we follow. May you, by considering yourselves,
be able to discover the heavenly kingdom also! For as all things are
subservient to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above
(for "the king's soul is in the hand of God," saith the prophetic
Spirit), so to the one God and the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son,
apprehended by us as inseparable from Him, all things are in like manner
subjected. This then especially I beg you carefully to consider. The gods, as
they affirm, were not from the beginning, but every one of them has come into
existence just like ourselves. And in this opinion they all agree. Homer speaks
of
"Old Oceanus,
The sire of gods, and Tethys;"
and Orpheus (who,
moreover, was the first to invent their names, and recounted their births, and
narrated the exploits of each, and is believed by them to treat with greater
truth than others of divine things, whom Homer himself follows in most matters,
especially in reference to the gods)--he, too, has fixed their first origin to
be from water:--
"Oceanus, the
origin of all."
For, according to
him, water was the beginning of all things, and from water mud was formed, and
from both was produced an animal, a dragon with the head of a lion growing to
it, and between the two heads there was the face of a god, named Heracles and
Kronos. This Heracles generated an egg of enormous size, which, on becoming
full, was, by the powerful friction of its generator, burst into two, the part
at the top receiving the form of heaven (οὐρανός), and the lower part that of
earth (γῆ). The goddess Gê moreover, came forth with a body; and Ouranos, by
his union with Gê, begat females, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos; and males, the
hundred-handed Cottys, Gyges, Briareus, and the Cyclopes Brontes, and Steropes,
and Argos, whom also he bound and hurled down to Tartarus, having learnt that
he was to be ejected from his government by his children; whereupon Gê, being
enraged, brought forth the Titans.
"The godlike
Gaia bore to Ouranos Sons who are by the name of Titans known, Because they
vengeance took on Ouranos, Majestic, glitt'ring with his starry crown."
(ANF 2:137)
Here, he rejects the reasoning of pagans who claimed that they were not
giving reverence/veneration to the image, but to the person it represented (the
"heavenly prototype"). In response to Catholic apologist Robert
Sungenis' statement that " Athenagoras is speaking about the same thing
Origen is, because they both are concerned with images to false gods or to God,
not to non-gods," Eric Svendsen wrote:
. . . Trent’s claim that
the Roman Catholic believer is not venerating the image but rather what the
image represents is precisely the same reasoning that Athenagoras says was used
by pagans to justify their use of images. Here is Trent:
“[not] that trust is
to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their
hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the
prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which
we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we
adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear” (Council
of Trent, Session XXV).
Yet, according
to Athenagoras, this was the same line of reasoning used by the pagans, and one
that he categorically rejects:
“It is asserted
by some [pagans] that, although these are only images, yet there exist gods in
honor of whom they are made. They say that the prayers and sacrifices presented
to the images are to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to the gods”
(Apology [To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius
Aurelius Commodus], XVIII).
Athenagoras
later tells us that he is not raising this point to indict the pagans but
rather to provide justification for the Christian rejection of
images:
“And I would
beseech you, greatest of emperors, before I enter on this discussion, to be
indulgent to me while I bring forward true considerations; for it is not my design
to show the fallacy of idols, but, by disproving the calumnies vented against
us, to offer a reason for the course of life we follow” (ibid.).
Athenagoras
writes to defend the course of life “we” follow (as distinct from the pagans),
and to refute the accusations against “us.” Clearly, Athenagoras is speaking
categorically for all Christians in his day, and he tells us
that the singular Christian practice is to reject visible images. (Eric
Svendsen, In
the Image of God: A Dialogue With a Roman Catholic Apologist on the Veneration
of Images)
One should read the entire article to see that what the Second Council
of Nicea (787) proclaimed dogmatically about the veneration of images/icons is not supported by the earliest Christian
authors but is a later teaching. As Svendsen noted, Sungenis and other Catholic
apologists such as Robert Sungenis have placed themselves
. . . in the
unenviable position of having to defend a practice that not only has no
biblical precedent, but is biblically characterized as repugnant. Moreover, he
has no support for this practice from the earliest years of Christianity.
Indeed, the "unanimous consent" of the early church seems to speak
with one voice against the practice. If later patristic writers decided to
adopt this practice, it does not make the practice any more biblical or any
less repugnant. Worshiping at the "high places" in ancient Israel was
no less despicable before God just because it happened to gain wide support
from the Jewish leaders. Sungenis, and Roman Catholicism as a whole, is simply
repeating the same errors of ancient Israel. Like ancient Israel, Roman
Catholicism has adopted traditions that not only "nullify the word of
God," but have crossed over into blatant idolatry.
