Latria

← Encyclopedia

Latria is the term Christian theology uses for the worship due to God and to God alone — the adoration that may rightly be offered to no creature, however exalted. The word is a Latinised borrowing of the Greek latreia, “service” or “divine service,” and it does its real work by contrast: against dulia, the honour paid to the saints and angels, and against hyperdulia, the higher honour reserved in Catholic usage for the Virgin Mary. The distinction is not a matter of degree along one scale. Latria is held to be a worship different in kind, the acknowledgement of God as the source and end of all things; dulia honours a creature precisely as a creature whom God has glorified.

The vocabulary is Greek, but the sharpening of it was forced by a specific crisis. When the Byzantine emperors of the eighth and ninth centuries moved to destroy the holy images, the charge against icon-veneration was idolatry — the giving of latria to wood and paint. The defenders answered with the distinction: the honour shown to an image, they argued, is not latria at all but passes through the image to its prototype, and so the worship of God is never divided. John of Damascus put the case in the East; the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 ratified it, decreeing that images were to receive veneration but never the true adoration (latreia) that belongs to the divine nature alone. The Western scholastics inherited the terms and ordered them further. Thomas Aquinas treated latria as the chief act of the virtue of religion, owed to God as first principle, and placed dulia and hyperdulia beneath it as distinct and lesser acts.

The distinction has never been merely academic, because it draws the line idolatry is accused of crossing. The Reformation reopened exactly this wound: Protestant critics held that the cult of saints and images had collapsed the boundary in practice, whatever theology said in theory, and that honour meant for God was being paid to creatures. Catholic and Orthodox theology answered that the boundary held, and that to honour the saints is to honour God’s work in them.

What the disputants shared, across the breach, was the premise that the line matters absolutely — that there is a worship which belongs to God and to nothing made, and that to misplace it is the gravest of errors. They disagreed about where a given act fell, almost never about whether the distinction was real. The word survives chiefly as the marker of that line: the name for the one thing theology insists cannot be shared.

→ Related: Tree Worship · Anselm Of Canterbury