The Church Corrected Both Extremes
Historic Boundaries on Devotion to Mary and the Saints
How the Early Church, East and West, Defended Intercession While Condemning Idolatry, Superstition, Exaggeration, and the Rejection of Legitimate Honor
Discussions about the saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary often become trapped between two extremes.
On one side are Christians who see virtually any request for saintly intercession as a departure from biblical Christianity.
On the other side are devotional expressions that can become so exaggerated that the distinction between a saint’s intercession and the power of God becomes difficult to recognize.
Historically, however, the Church did not simply choose one of these extremes.
It corrected both.
The same Fathers and councils that defended the honor of the saints, their continuing life in Christ, and the usefulness of their intercession also insisted that:
- saints are not gods,
- divine worship belongs to God alone,
- sacrifice is offered to God alone,
- Christ remains the source of salvation,
- superstition is to be removed,
- exaggerated or misleading devotion is to be corrected,
- and devotional practices must never obscure the worship of God.
At the same time, the Church also corrected those who went in the opposite direction by denying legitimate honor, rejecting the communion of saints, or attempting to eliminate practices the Church regarded as lawful Christian remembrance and intercession.
The historical evidence therefore gives us neither unrestricted devotionalism nor complete rejection.
It gives us boundaries.
Companion Study: The Historical Development of the Communion of Saints
This article focuses specifically on the Church’s own corrections of excess, superstition, idolatry, exaggeration, and the opposite error of rejecting legitimate honor and intercession.
For the broader historical study—including the biblical foundation, heavenly communion, prayer for the departed, the development from acknowledged intercession to direct invocation, the Celtic and Gallican evidence, the Stowe Missal, the Diptychs, and the A–E framework used throughout this discussion—see:
The two studies are intended to be read together: one traces the historical development of the practice; this article examines the limits the Church itself placed upon that practice.
I. The Question Is Not Simply: “Do We Honor the Saints?”
By the fourth century, Christians were already commemorating martyrs, celebrating their anniversaries, gathering at their tombs, remembering them within the Eucharist, and increasingly speaking of their intercession.
The historical controversy was therefore not simply:
“Should Christians acknowledge saints at all?”
Rather, the deeper questions became:
What kind of honor is appropriate?
What belongs to God alone?
When does remembrance become superstition?
When does intercession become confused with independent divine power?
And can opposition to devotional excess itself become excessive?
These questions were not invented during the Protestant Reformation.
They were already being debated in antiquity.
II. Laodicea: Heavenly Devotion Must Not Become a Rival Religion
One of the earliest important disciplinary statements comes from the fourth-century Council of Laodicea.
Canon 35 warns:
“Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies…”
The canon describes the prohibited practice as:
“covert idolatry”
and says that such a person has:
“forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ”
and gone over to idolatry.
This canon has sometimes been presented as though it prohibited every Christian appeal to angels.
That interpretation is too broad.
The historical context appears to involve a particular angelic cult in Asia Minor, associated with rival gatherings and practices that detracted from the worship of Christ. Ancient commentary on the canon itself recognized that the problem was a form of idolatry rather than the simple acknowledgment of angels.
The wording nevertheless provides an important principle:
Devotion to heavenly beings becomes unacceptable when it draws Christians away from the Church and from Christ and becomes an alternative religious system.
This is already considerably more nuanced than either extreme.
The Church did not say:
“Angels do not exist, or cannot minister.”
Nor did it say:
“Anything done in the name of angelic devotion is acceptable.”
It drew a boundary.
III. Epiphanius: Mary Is to Be Honored—but Not Worshipped
The same problem arose especially clearly regarding Mary.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, writing in the fourth century, opposed a group commonly called the Collyridians, whom he accused of offering cakes or bread in a sacrificial manner in honor of Mary.
Epiphanius did not answer this abuse by diminishing Mary.
On the contrary, his writings contain very elevated praise of her.
But he drew a categorical distinction:
“Let Mary be held in honor. Let the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be adored, but let no one adore Mary.”
The important point is that Epiphanius can simultaneously hold:
Mary is extraordinarily honored
and:
Mary must not become the recipient of divine worship.
This is exactly the sort of distinction often lost in contemporary debates.
One group may reason:
“If Mary is highly honored, every form of Marian devotion must be acceptable.”
Another may reason:
“If some Christians went too far with Mary, Marian honor itself must be rejected.”
Epiphanius does neither.
The error is not honoring Mary.
The error is turning honor into deification.
IV. Augustine: We Honor the Martyrs, but We Do Not Sacrifice to Them
St. Augustine gives perhaps the clearest early Western explanation.
He explicitly contrasts Christian remembrance of martyrs with pagan worship of deceased heroes and gods.
Christians, Augustine says, do not:
- build temples to martyrs as gods,
- appoint priests to them,
- establish sacrifices to them,
- or offer divine worship to them.
He asks rhetorically whether a Christian priest standing at an altar near the body of a martyr would ever say:
“I offer sacrifice to thee, O Peter,”
or Paul, or Cyprian.
His answer is no.
Rather:
sacrifice is offered to God—the God who made them both men and martyrs.
The martyrs are remembered in order that Christians may thank God for their victories and imitate their example.
Augustine elsewhere makes the technical distinction still clearer:
divine worship—latria—is given only to God;
and sacrifice belongs to that worship.
This gives us a remarkably early Western boundary:
Honor the martyr.
Remember the martyr.
Value the martyr’s heavenly fellowship.
But do not convert the martyr into a god.
V. John of Damascus: The Saints Participate; They Are Not Gods by Nature
The Eastern tradition developed the same distinction with considerable theological precision.
St. John of Damascus, one of the great defenders of sacred images during the iconoclastic controversy, describes saints as:
friends of Christ,
children and heirs of God,
and persons who:
“make intercession to God for us.”
He therefore argues that honor shown to them ultimately honors their common Master.
But John is equally careful regarding the difference between God and creation.
When discussing worship he distinguishes the latreia belonging to God from other forms of reverence or honor.
He says that God alone is adorable by nature and that latreia belongs to Him.
Even when he uses the broad ancient word translated “worship” or “veneration” for saints or angels, he explicitly says that they are honored:
not as gods
but as ministers, servants, and friends of God.
This terminology matters because older words such as proskynesis could describe several kinds of reverence, including ordinary honor offered to rulers or other human beings.
The theological question was therefore not simply whether someone “bowed” or “venerated.”
It was:
What kind of honor is intended, and whom does the worshipper believe the saint to be?
VI. The Iconoclast Controversy Reveals Something Surprising
The eighth-century iconoclastic controversy provides one of the most revealing tests of how deeply saintly intercession had become established.
The Council of Hieria in 754 rejected sacred images and was later rejected in turn by the Second Council of Nicaea.
Yet even this iconoclast council did not simply abolish the intercession of Mary and the saints.
Its surviving definition anathematizes anyone who does not sincerely seek Mary’s intercession and likewise condemns anyone who:
“denies the profit of the invocation of Saints.”
This is historically striking.
Hieria was willing to condemn icons.
It was willing to attack major portions of prevailing devotional practice.
Yet it still retained:
- Mary as Mother of God,
- Marian intercession,
- saintly intercession,
- and the usefulness of invoking the saints.
This means that the dispute over icons and the dispute over saintly intercession were not the same dispute.
Even among major iconoclasts, one could say:
“Remove the images”
without necessarily saying:
“The saints do not pray for us.”
That suggests that heavenly intercession itself had become a deeper and broader point of Christian agreement by the eighth century than the question of sacred images.
At the same time, some later accusations suggest that more radical iconoclast figures, especially Constantine V, may have gone further in attacking saintly and Marian devotion.
This demonstrates something important:
The reforming impulse itself could also become excessive.
The Church could perceive genuine abuses or dangers and yet still judge that the proper solution was correction rather than eradication.
VII. Nicaea II: Correcting the Iconoclast Extreme While Preserving the Boundary
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 rejected the iconoclast position and restored the lawful veneration of sacred images.
But Nicaea II did not simply say:
“Venerate everything without distinction.”
It carefully distinguished different kinds of honor.
The council states that images may receive honorable reverence, but:
the true worship of faith—latreia—belongs to the divine nature alone.
Elsewhere the council explains that saints may be called upon for prayer, but:
“Not indeed as gods (God forbid!)”
Rather, they are asked:
“to pray for me to God.”
God then grants mercy through their intercessions.
This is one of the clearest ancient formulations of the distinction.
The saint is addressed.
The saint may be honored.
The saint intercedes.
But:
God remains God.
One bishop at the council formulated the distinction equally clearly:
honorable salutation and reverence may be given to sacred images;
but:
“the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the… Trinity.”
Thus Nicaea II corrected two errors simultaneously:
Iconoclasm:
Do not erase lawful Christian honor and remembrance.
Idolatry:
Do not transfer divine worship to creatures.
This “royal road” between opposite errors is crucial for understanding the historic position.
VIII. Strong Language Does Not Automatically Mean Independent Divine Power
This distinction also helps interpret stronger devotional language.
A prayer may say:
“Mary, help us.”
“Protect us.”
“Save us.”
Such wording can sound substantially stronger than:
“Pray for us.”
But the official theology surrounding such language often interprets it through intercession.
Nicaea II itself speaks of Mary’s:
“help and protection and intercessions”
and then explains that the saints are asked:
“to pray for me to God.”
This means strong devotional grammar does not necessarily mean that the saint is being assigned independent divine power.
The saint can be called a helper because the saint’s prayers obtain help from God.
Nevertheless, strong language can become ambiguous if it is detached from this theological foundation.
And that is why later Western councils repeatedly returned to the need for correction.
IX. Trent: Defend the Saints—and Abolish the Abuses
The Council of Trent is particularly useful because it met precisely when saintly devotion was being heavily criticized during the Reformation.
Trent strongly defended:
- invocation of saints,
- relics,
- sacred images,
- imitation of the saints,
- and the traditional practices surrounding them.
Yet the same decree says:
“if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances,”
they are to be:
“utterly abolished.”
Then it states:
“in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed.”
This is enormously important historically.
Trent did not answer Protestant criticism by saying:
“There are no abuses.”
It effectively said:
The doctrine is legitimate; the abuses are not.
The council ordered removal of:
- superstition,
- false doctrine,
- dangerous error,
- financial exploitation,
- inappropriate displays,
- and irreverent celebrations.
At the final session, the council’s own summary spoke explicitly about abuses connected with:
“veneration of saints, worship of images and relics”
that needed to be interdicted because they had disfigured legitimate practice.
Thus, even at the height of the Catholic response to the Reformation:
defending saintly devotion did not mean defending everything done in its name.
X. Vatican II: “Abuses, Excesses or Defects”
The Second Vatican Council states the principle even more clearly.
Lumen Gentium reaffirms:
- fellowship with the heavenly saints,
- their example,
- communion with them,
- and “aid by their intercession.”
Yet immediately alongside this affirmation the Council says:
“if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there,”
they should be:
“removed or corrected”
so that all things may be restored:
“to a fuller praise of Christ and of God.”
This wording is exceptionally useful because the Council identifies three possible errors:
Abuse
Something legitimate is used improperly.
Excess
Something valid is exaggerated beyond its proper proportion.
Defect
Something legitimate is neglected or wrongly diminished.
This means Catholic teaching itself recognizes errors on both sides.
There can be too much.
There can also be too little.
The Council says authentic devotion is not chiefly about endlessly multiplying external acts.
Instead Christians seek from the saints:
their example, fellowship in communion, and aid by intercession.
And the purpose is to enrich—not weaken—the worship offered:
to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.
That is remarkably close to the balance seen much earlier in Augustine.
XI. Paul VI: Exaggeration Can Actually Falsify Doctrine
Paul VI’s Marialis Cultus goes even further in naming concrete devotional problems.
The document calls for Marian devotion to remain explicitly:
- Trinitarian,
- Christological,
- ecclesial,
- biblical,
- liturgical.
It says authentic Marian devotion takes its origin and effectiveness from Christ and ultimately leads through Christ in the Spirit to the Father.
But then Paul VI addresses incorrect devotion directly.
He warns against:
“exaggeration of content and form which even falsifies doctrine”
and also against the opposite:
“small-mindedness which obscures the figure and mission of Mary.”
Again:
too much can distort doctrine.
too little can also distort doctrine.
The document additionally rejects:
- vain credulity,
- excessive reliance on merely external practices,
- sterile sentimentalism,
- exaggerated pursuit of novelty or extraordinary phenomena,
- legendary or false material,
- one-sided presentations of Mary.
It says practices contrary to correct Catholic devotion:
“must have no place in Catholic worship.”
This is much stronger than simply advising greater moderation.
It is an explicit ecclesiastical correction.
XII. The Church Was Not Asking Christians to Defend Every Popular Devotion
This point deserves emphasis.
A Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or other Christian examining historical saint devotion does not have to defend:
- every popular Marian story,
- every alleged apparition,
- every private revelation,
- every legendary miracle,
- every devotional booklet,
- every medieval exaggeration,
- every internet quotation,
- every pious phrase used without theological explanation.
The official tradition itself does not require this.
On the contrary, authoritative Catholic teaching specifically instructs Christians to remove:
false,
legendary,
exaggerated,
superstitious,
or misleading material.
This actually makes historical discussion considerably easier.
One need not choose between:
“Accept absolutely everything”
and:
“Reject the entire communion of saints.”
The historic Church itself chose neither.
XIII. The Opposite Error: Reform Can Become Destruction
The other side of the problem must be stated just as clearly.
Throughout history, concern about genuine abuses has sometimes produced an opposite reaction:
abolish everything associated with the abuse.
The iconoclast controversy illustrates the danger.
Concern about idolatry was not intrinsically unreasonable.
The ancient Church itself condemned idolatry.
But the iconoclast solution went further:
sacred images themselves must be eliminated.
Nicaea II judged that correction excessive.
Similarly, the existence of Marian exaggeration does not logically prove that Mary should cease to be honored.
The existence of superstition concerning saints does not prove that the saints cease praying.
The existence of abuses surrounding relics does not establish that Christian remembrance of martyrs is itself idolatrous.
The Church’s repeated approach is therefore:
correct the abuse without destroying the underlying truth.
This is precisely what Vatican II means by correcting not merely “abuses” and “excesses” but also “defects.”
There can be a defect produced by overreaction.
XIV. A Practical Test for Devotional Language
Historical sources suggest several useful questions whenever a prayer or devotional practice is examined.
1. Who is understood to possess divine power?
If God remains the ultimate source of:
- salvation,
- forgiveness,
- grace,
- providence,
- healing,
- resurrection,
then saintly assistance may be understood derivatively.
If the saint functions as an autonomous supernatural power, the boundary is being crossed.
2. What does “help” or “save” actually mean?
Does it mean:
“intercede with God for this grace”?
Or:
“you possess this divine power independently”?
The words alone may not settle the matter.
The surrounding theology must be examined.
3. Who receives sacrifice and divine worship?
Augustine’s answer is clear:
God.
Nicaea II’s answer is equally clear:
latreia belongs to the divine nature alone.
4. Does the devotion lead toward or away from Christ?
Paul VI’s standard is explicitly Christological.
Authentic Marian devotion:
comes from Christ,
depends upon Christ,
and leads toward Christ.
A devotional system that begins functionally replacing Christ has departed from that principle.
5. Has private devotion displaced the Church’s common worship?
Laodicea’s warning remains relevant.
A private angelic, saintly, prophetic, or visionary system that draws Christians away from the Church’s God-centered worship represents something qualitatively different from the communion of saints within the Church.
6. Is the claim true?
Paul VI specifically rejects legendary and false material.
Piety does not become holy merely because a story sounds devotional.
Historical truth still matters.
XV. Returning to the A–E Framework
The distinctions developed in our companion study can therefore be summarized:
A — Communion and Commemoration
The saints belong to the heavenly Church and praise God.
B — Intercession Affirmed
The saints pray for the earthly Church.
C — Intercession Requested
“Pray for us.”
D — Derivative Assistance
“Help,” “protect,” or “save,” understood as participation in God’s grace through intercession.
E — Deification, Displacement, or Excess
A saint is treated as:
- a god,
- an autonomous source of salvation,
- a rival to Christ,
- recipient of divine worship,
- or center of a devotional system that displaces God and the Church.
The Church’s corrective tradition is directed particularly against E.
But it also recognizes that D can become pastorally dangerous if its underlying C-theology is forgotten.
This is why clarity matters.
XVI. The Historical Church Corrected Both Directions
The record can therefore be summarized:
Laodicea:
Do not abandon Christ and the Church for idolatrous angelic devotion.
Epiphanius:
Honor Mary—but do not worship Mary.
Augustine:
Honor the martyrs—but sacrifice belongs to the God of the martyrs.
John of Damascus:
Honor God’s friends—but latreia belongs to God.
Hieria, 754:
Even iconoclasts still retained Marian and saintly intercession.
Nicaea II, 787:
Do not abolish lawful veneration—but saints are “not gods,” and divine latreia belongs to God alone.
Trent, 1563:
Defend saintly intercession—but abolish abuses and remove every superstition.
Vatican II:
Correct “abuses, excesses or defects” and restore everything to the fuller praise of Christ and God.
Paul VI:
Reject exaggeration that falsifies doctrine—but also reject the opposite small-mindedness that erases Mary’s legitimate place.
This history gives us something considerably more balanced than the modern polemical alternatives.
For the fuller historical chronology behind these distinctions—from heavenly communion and prayer for the departed to direct intercession, Celtic liturgical evidence, and later devotional development—see our companion study:
The Communion of Saints in Early Christian and Celtic Worship
Conclusion: Neither Deification nor Erasure
The historical Christian tradition did not teach that the saints replace Christ.
Neither did it teach that death erases the communion of Christ’s Body.
It did not authorize creatures to receive the divine worship belonging to God.
Neither did it conclude that honoring saints is therefore idolatry.
It did not deny that devotional excess can become dangerous.
Neither did it treat the existence of abuse as sufficient reason to abolish legitimate devotion.
Instead, the Church repeatedly attempted to preserve a boundary:
Honor without deification.
Intercession without rival mediation.
Devotion without superstition.
Remembrance without idolatry.
Reform without destruction.
The saints remain saints precisely because they belong to Christ.
Mary is honored precisely because of what God accomplished in her.
The martyrs are remembered because God gave them victory.
Their prayers have meaning because they stand before God.
And the entire communion of saints ultimately points beyond itself to the same center:
the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.
That is why both extremes must be corrected.
To turn a saint into something approaching a deity is to lose the historic Christian distinction.
But to erase the saints from the living communion of Christ’s Body is also to lose something the ancient Church believed it had received.
The better path is the older one:
retain what is true, correct what becomes excessive, and restore everything to the fuller praise of Christ and of God.