Use and veneration of images. One must distinguish the use of images
for the decoration of churches, the instruction of the faithful, and as an aid
to prayer, from the veneration of images properly speaking.
1. Before the Council of Nicaea. During this period, ecclesiastical
writers were not willing to accept the use of and even less the veneration of
images, although most of the time they expressed themselves indirectly: they
took a stance in the fight against pagan idolatry, basing themselves on the anti-image
texts of the OT. The real image of God is Christ, then humanity and the virtue
that is in it: the temple of the Christians is the human body, the shrine of
the image, or it is the universe. At times their rejection of idolatry leads
them to oppose those same arguments that were later adopted by the defenders of
the veneration of images. Of note are the following: *Tertullian (De idolatria 4,1; Adv. Hermogenem I,2), who also says (De spectaculis 23,5) that God, being the Truth, cannot accept what
is false; Clement of Alexandria (Protr.
IV, 62, 1–2), who specifies (Strom.
VII, V, 28–29) that God cannot be contained; Origen (C. Cels. VII, 62–67), Minucius Felix (Octavius, 32), Lactantius (Inst.
Div II, 2). The early 4th-c. Council of *Elvira in canon 36 prohibited
the display of paintings in churches.
One of the
main reasons for this are the prohibitions of the OT, esp. considering that the
Decalogue is still valid in the new covenant, the prohibition to make images
(the second commandment in Ex 20:4–5 or Dt 5:8–9). In fact, most of the Fathers
before Augustine follow the subdivision of the Decalogue by the Jews attested
by Philo (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
15, De Decalogo 23) that
distinguishes four commandments regarding God, one on the love of parents (the
5th), then five regarding one’s neighbor, joining in the tenth all the sins of
desire. This breakdown is attested in Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. II, 35), Clement of Alexandria
(Strom. VI, XVI, 146, 1), Origen (Fragm. Eph. XXXI, Com. Mt XI, 9). In Hom. Ex
VIII, 2, Origen writes that for some this second commandment is one with the
first, but it may be a clarification of the translator Rufinus, a contemporary
of Augustine. The same division is found in the Fathers after Nicaea, who do
not draw the same conclusions: the Synopsis
Scripturae Sanctae attributed to Athanasius (PG 28, 297), the dogmatic poem
15 of *Gregory of Nazianzus (PG 37, 476), *Jerome (Com. Eph. III on Eph 6,2; Com.Os. III on Os 10,9–10), Ambrosiaster (Com. Eph. on Eph 6,3), the emperor Julian acc. to Cyril of Alexandria (C. Julianum V, PG 76, 733), *John
Cassian (Collatio VIII, 23).
This position
of the Fathers before Nicaea poses a problem: in fact, Tertullian as a
Montanist asserts, without blaming them too explicitly, that the “psychici,”
i.e., the Catholics, have on some chalices a depiction of the Good Shepherd (De Pud. VII, 1; IX, 12) and a great many
paintings of the Roman catacombs date back to the 3rd if not the 2nd c.; those
in the East in the baptistery of *Dura Europos cannot be later than
the 3rd c., because the city was destroyed in 256. So there is a discrepancy
between the position of some writers and actual practice. It should also be
noted that although the prohibition of images in the OT seemed absolute, in
practice it was much less so; as shown by the cherubim on the Tabernacle (Ex
25:17–20; Num 7:89; Ezek 41:18–20). The Jews of the early centuries of our era
did not observe the prohibition of images strictly as shown by their catacombs
in Rome, the synagogue of Dura Europos and even the Galilean synagogues (cf.
DBS 4, 199–232). The same discrepancy can therefore be seen.
2. In the 4th and 5th c. Two isolated cases of the 4th c. show
strong opposition to images. Eusebius testifies (HE 7, 18, 2–4) to having seen a monument erected in Paneas to
Christ by the woman with the hemorrhage of blood whom he had healed, and that
the monument represented her with Jesus—some think that it was actually
Asclepius—as well as paintings of Peter, Paul and Jesus: he did not reprove the
makers of these images too harshly, attributing these things to pagan custom.
However, when the empress Constantia, sister of Constantine and the widow of
Licinius, wanted to obtain from him an image of Christ, Eusebius rejected the
request outright, saying that the human form of Christ was now completely
deified, and could not therefore be represented (PG 20, 1545–50). In a letter
to John of *Jerusalem, translated into Latin by Jerome (51 in the
correspondence of the latter), Epiphanius reports that he found in Palestine,
in a church in a village, a curtain on which was painted “the image of Christ
or a saint.” Faithful to Scripture he pulls the curtain down and asks John to
put an end to these practices which are “against our religion.” Nevertheless, other
Fathers speak incidentally of images without showing the slightest disapproval.
Sometimes they make reference esp. to the cross, not only of the wood of the
original, which is venerated as a relic, but also of the “sign” that tends to
be depicted more and more: the emperor *Julian, acc. to Cyril of
Alexandria, and Cyril himself (C.
Julianum VI: PG 76, 796ff.); *John Chrysostom (Quod Christus sit Deus 9: PG 48, 826); *Asterius
of Amasea (Hom XI in laudem S. Euphemiae:
PG 40, 333–334). Augustine (Tract. in Jo.
117, 3 on Jo 19; Serm. 99,9) and Prudentius (Apotheosis
448) speak of the cross that the emperors wear on their crown. Theodoret (Graec. Af. Curatio VI: SC 57, 285) also
speaks of the veneration (γεραίρειν) of the sign
(σημεῖον) of the cross: he is not referring in
this context, therefore, to the relic of the cross. The evidence for paintings
does not yet attest their veneration. They are scenes of the OT, like the
sacrifice of Abraham, which moves *Gregory of Nyssa (De deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti: PG
46, 572 C). Augustine attests that such images are represented everywhere (C. Faust XXII, 73); there are also
figures of the NT such as the apostles, painted on vases acc. to Jerome (Com. Jon. IV, 6), and Peter and Paul
with Christ, acc. to Augustine (De cons.
evang. I, 10 [16]). Finally, the basilicas of the martyrs are full of
depictions of their passions: Gregory of Nyssa describes that of the martyr
Theodore, where an image of Christ was also included (De S. Theodoro: PG 46, 737 D); Asterius of Amasea describes that of
Saint Euphemia (Hom. XI: PG 40, 333).
*Basil invites painters to depict the martyr Barlaam (Hom. XVII in Barlaam mart.: PG 31, 489).
Similar paintings are mentioned by Prudentius (Peristephanon IX, 9ff.).
The image of
St. Polemon stopped a prostitute (Greg. Naz., Poemi morali X, 802–807). Paulinus of Nola wanted to build porches
all frescoed with images in honor of his dear St. Felix (Poema 27,511; Poema 28,
20–21), and his letter 32 to Sulpicius Severus described the subjects he must
represent, above all St. Martin, in the basilica that he plans for Primuliacum.
Gregory of Nyssa promoted these paintings, writing on the basilica of St.
Theodore, because they are like a book that speaks to those who cannot read and
they give rise to the desire for spiritual realities. Similarly, a letter of
Nilus to the governor Olympiodorus (IV, 61: PG 79, 577) dissuades the latter
from introducing into the basilica that he wants to build representations of
purely ornamental animals and plants: rather, he should represent scenes of the
two Testaments designed to educate the illiterate and instill in them a burning
desire for heaven. At the end of the 6th c., two letters of *Gregory
the Great (IX, 105 and XI, 13: PL 77, 1027ff., 1128ff.) praise Serenus, bishop
of *Marseille, for impeding in his diocese a superstitious worship
of images, but censures him for their destruction and for having thus caused a
division among his faithful: the letters emphasize the educational function of images.
3. Before and during the iconoclastic
crisis. So far there
had not been a liturgical veneration of images. The phrase of Basil, quoted in
the Second Council of Nicaea: “The honor given to the image refers back to its
prototype” (De Spir. S.to XVIII, 45)
cannot be used to posit the liturgical veneration of images, because the
council extrapolates it from its context, which deals with the theology of the
image of God, in order to apply it to the veneration of images. Origen had
rejected a similar argument made by the pagans to justify their idolatrous
worship (C. Cels. VI, 14), but the
dogma of the incarnation, developed in earlier centuries through the crisis
provoked by Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, the monophysite heresy and its
various offshoots provided a justification for the veneration of images. It is
difficult to know when and how the representation of sacred images produced a
liturgical veneration. Three canons of the Quinisext Council or In Trullo of 692 treat this matter:
canon 73 regards the veneration of the cross; canon 82 calls for the
replacement of the symbolic and allegorical representations of Christ, such as
the Lamb, with human figures; canon 100 provides rules for decency in sacred
art. The iconoclastic currents also had as their main motive the fear of
idolatry and prohibitions of the OT; some radicals demanded the complete
destruction of images; others, more moderate, rejected their veneration, or
accepted some images but not others. Abuses gave them their pretext, and
political pressures, if not from Muslims or Jews, at least from the *Manicheans
or Paulicians, also played a role. The two crises were stirred and then muffled
by the direct interference of the emperor. The initiative came from Leo III the
Isaurian in the fall of 725: the Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, who
opposed him, was forced to abdicate in 729; he was supported by Popes Gregory
II and Gregory III, who refused to acknowledge the imperial measures.
Constantine V Copronymus continued the religious policy of his father and in
752 called an iconoclastic synod of 338 bishops in the Hieria palace, on the E
outskirts of the capital: the council decreed the destruction of all images
that were in churches, and following upon these decrees, Constantine violently
persecuted the supporters of images. But after his death in 775 and that of his
son Leo IV in 780, the latter’s widow, Irene, regent because of the age of the
child Constantine VI, prudently restored the veneration of images. A new
council was called at Nicaea in 787, the seventh ecumenical council, which
condemned the council at the Hieria and defended the veneration of images.
Nevertheless, the crisis resumed in 813, with the advent of Leo the Armenian
and continued under his successors Michael II and Theophilus. At the latter’s
death in 843, his wife, Theodora, regent for her underage son, restored the
veneration of images, commemorating it with the Feast of Orthodoxy, which would
from then on be celebrated 11 March every year. The two iconoclast crises were the
occasion for theological reflection, developed in the first crisis by Patriarch
Germanus of Constantinople, the monk George of Cyprus and esp. *John
of Damascus in three discourses against the iconoclasts; during the second by
Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople and above all by Theodore the Studite.
They emphasized, as a consequence of the incarnation, the sacramental character
of the icon, which on account of its participation in what it represents is a
source of grace. (Henri Crouzel, “Image,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James
Hoover, 3 vols. [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014], 2:322–324)
