IMAGES, Cult of. - It is the honor rendered to sacred images, that is, to the painted or sculpted representations of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints. The same honor is paid to representations of incorporeal beings: God the Father, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Angels. The cult of images often includes that rendered to the Cross, to relics, to the book of the Gospel, to consecrated objects, because it does not differ essentially from the former. It is a relative cult, that is, one that does not refer to the image or the sacred object for itself, but rather to the person represented or to God (v. CULTO).
I. HISTORY
A distinction must be made between the use of images and the cult paid to them. History records men who favored the use of images and fought against their cult. In the Church, use preceded cult, which developed only slowly. Use goes back to the origins. The Old Testament seemed contrary both to the use and to the cult of images, as appears to be inferred from Ex. 24:4: "Thou shalt not make any image or likeness of what is in the heights of the heavens, nor of what is on the earth, nor of what is in the depths of the abysses." In reality, this prohibition was never absolute, at least in a certain period; consider, for example, the cherubim of the ark of the covenant and the bronze serpent (Ex. 25:18; 37:7-9; Num. 21:8-9; Reg. 7:25). It is in the time after the exile, especially in the age of the Maccabees, that Judaism begins to proscribe any image for fear of idolatry.
The many paintings of the catacombs, the sculptures of Christian sarcophagi, certain statues of the Good Shepherd clearly show that the Church has used images from the very origins. Tertullian speaks of the image of the Good Shepherd existing on chalices (De pudicitia, 7, 10), and Eusebius of Caesarea says he saw with his own eyes the painted images of Sts. Peter and Paul and of Jesus (Hist. eccl., 7, 18). Only a few isolated voices, relying on the authority of the Old Testament, disapprove of this use; the names of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius and Lactantius are mentioned. The Council of Elvira (305 or 306) says in can. 36: "Placuit pictura in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur." In a letter to Constantia, sister of Constantine, Eusebius rejected images for fear of idolatry (cf. A. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, I, Paris 1852, pp. 383-86; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 18). It was long thought that St. Epiphanius held the same opinion in a letter addressed to John of Jerusalem, of which only a Latin translation, attributed to St. Jerome, is extant. There is reason to believe, however, that this letter was manipulated by the iconoclasts (cf. Mansi, XIII, 292). In the 4th and 5th centuries the use of images is found everywhere. As regards the cult properly so called, it manifests itself principally around the Cross. For specific images of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin and of the saints, the testimonies are much rarer. One must reach the 6th and 7th centuries to find entirely explicit testimonies. The acheiropoieta images (v.) go back to this period: to such images a special veneration is undoubtedly paid. Toward the end of the 6th century, Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, in his fiftieth apologetic discourse against the Jews, defended the Christians from the accusation of idolatry and already traced the first lines of the theology of the cult of the Cross and of images (PG 93, 1597-1609). In the West, the poet Fortunatus mentions a lamp burning before the image of St. Martin. St. Gregory the Great reproaches the bishop of Marseilles, Serenus, who had the audacity to break the images in order to remove from the people the danger of idolatry (Epist., 11, 13). In another place, the same Saint speaks of the veneration of the Cross and of sacred images (Epist., 9, 6). Only the Jews and the Manichaean sects, for example, the Paulicians of Asia Minor, made war on the use and the cult of images. To these must be added certain Monophysite theologians of the early period: Philoxenus of Mabbug, Severus of Antioch, Peter Fullo, who, however, were not followed by the Monophysite Churches, which have maintained the cult of images in the Byzantine manner (cf. M. Jugie, Theologia Orientalium dissidentium, V, Paris 1935, pp. 577-83). When in 726 the first iconoclastic persecution broke out, in the Church there prevailed everywhere not only the use but also the cult of images, which had indeed already given rise to some abuse.
The iconoclastic persecutions (v. ICONOCLASTIA) had repercussions in the West. As soon as the heresy appeared, it was condemned in the Councils of Rome of 731 and 769. It was also mentioned in the Synod held at Gentilly (769). A true and proper controversy concerning the cult of images originated only under Charlemagne after the Second Council of Nicaea (v. CAROLINI, LIBRI). Pope Adrian I had to undertake the defense of the Council to demonstrate its orthodoxy, but the Frankish theologians perhaps were not convinced. It is certain that, some years later, the Frankish bishops gave a glad welcome to the letter written by the Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer to Louis the Pious (824). The emperor Michael was a moderate iconomachus. He rejected the cult of images, but accepted their use. The Frankish bishops, with the approval of Pope Eugene II (824-27), wished to hold an assembly in Paris in 825, for the purpose of examining the problem of the cult. The documents they sent to Rome reveal them as stubborn opponents of the cult. They censured both the Council of Nicaea and Pope Adrian, and accepted the theses of the Libri Carolini. At this point the iconoclastic fury of Claudius, bishop of Turin, a narrow-minded Spaniard, broke out; he had Crosses and images destroyed and also attacked the cult of the Saints and their relics. The work he wrote to justify his conduct was refuted by the monk Dungal of St. Denis and by Jonas, bishop of Orléans, whose doctrine approaches the definition of Nicaea, which was fully accepted in France only after the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869-70), which confirmed it in its third canon.
During the Middle Ages as in modern times, the cult of images and even simply their use have had opponents sometimes no less ardent than the Byzantine iconoclasts. In the East the Bogomils, akin to the Paulicians; in the West Peter and Henry of Bruys, the Wycliffites and the Hussites despised images, especially the Cross. The Protestants too made war on images and destroyed them; the Calvinists stood out, to whom the ruin of numerous and precious treasures of Christian art is due. Against them, the Council of Trent proclaimed anew the legitimacy of the cult of images.
In the East, after the iconoclastic struggle, and down to our own days, especially in Russia, the cult of the icons has taken on an extraordinary development, which may be considered excessive. While statues are forbidden, painted images abound and are the object of cult not only in churches, but also in private homes and almost everywhere. The West has shown itself much more moderate. Many images are not the object of cult properly so called and are used as ornament and as a means of instruction: for example, frescoes, mosaics, painted windows. Certain ancient icons are the object of particular veneration, and especially the statues of Our Lord, of the Madonna and of the Saints.
II. DOCTRINE
That the use of images is legitimate and useful is a truth of the experimental order, which needs no demonstration. Images are continually used both in family life and in social life, as the monuments and portraits of kings, great men, and relatives show. One does not see, therefore, why it should be forbidden to use them in the religious sphere and to paint or sculpt the image of the Son of God made man, of His Mother, and of the Saints. Man is composed of matter and spirit; he needs sensible and material things in order to raise himself to the knowledge and love of the spiritual and invisible world. The image fulfills the threefold function of ornament, by decorating the places of worship; of instruction, by bringing the illiterate and ignorant to a knowledge of the episodes of sacred history, of the truths taught by the catechism, and by recalling these same truths to everyone's mind; of incitement to piety: indeed, the sight of an image stirs feelings of respect, veneration, love, and confidence toward the person it represents and with whom it puts us in relation.
The nature, moreover, of the cult properly so called that is rendered to images as such was defined in three ecumenical councils: in the Second Council of Nicaea (787), in the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in the Council of Trent. The definition of Nicaea says: "We decide to restore the sacred and venerable images of Jesus Christ, of His holy Mother, of the Angels and of the Saints... to render them respect and honorific cult (τιμητικὴ προσκύνησιν); certainly not the cult of true and proper latria, which belongs to God alone, but that honor which is given to the image of the precious and life-giving Cross, to the Gospels and to the other sacred objects. For the honor rendered to the image passes over to the prototype, and he who gives veneration to the image gives veneration to the person it represents" (Mansi, XIII, 377-80). The Council of Trent confirmed the same doctrine in these terms: "Imagines Christi, Deiparae Virginis et aliorum sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas et retinendas eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendum: non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, velut olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant (Ps. 134, 15), sed quoniam honor qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypia, quae illae repraesentant, ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus et sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur" (Denz-U, 986).
The cult of which images are the object is, therefore, a relative cult, which is not limited to the matter of which the image is made, but refers to the original, in the sense that the external signs of veneration that are given to the image are interiorly directed to the original; and it is precisely for the sake of the latter that the image is honored. There is no case in which such external signs of veneration given to the image can be defined as acts of adoration, even of relative adoration. It is true that St. Thomas and many other theologians after him spoke precisely of relative adoration, as regards the Cross and the image of the Savior. But this terminology is dangerous and the Church has never sanctioned it in her official documents. According to the Fathers, defenders of the cult of images, adoration, latria properly so called, is always absolute and refers only to God. According to the definition of the Council of Nicaea, there is no difference of nature between the cult rendered to the Cross and to the images of the Savior and that rendered to the images of the Saints. That the Scholastics used the expression "relative adoration" depends on the fact that they were ignorant of the definition of the Council of Nicaea and lived before the Council of Trent. Moreover, the difference existing between them and the ancient Fathers is more formal than substantial. When one stands before the image of Jesus one can abstract from it and behave as if the original of that image were present in person. The image then represents a simple occasion for rendering to the Savior the cult of adoration, which is always an absolute cult.
The cult of images is in itself lawful and useful, but not necessary. The Church could also, for particular reasons, suppress it momentarily. If she defended it with such vigor against the iconoclasts, it is only because the latter accused her of error and idolatry.
Bibliography12 works
Martino Jugie
III. CANON LAW
In order to be an object of worship, it is necessary that images not represent anything contrary to the faith and to good morals; that they conform to what is related, regarding what they depict, in Sacred Scripture and in tradition, and that they not be invalitae, in which case they cannot be exposed without the approval of the Ordinary; that they not depart, finally, in clothing and colors, from the discipline approved by the Church (CIC, cann. 1279 and 1399, 12). They cannot be carved into the floor. Printed images, with or without added prayers, must have the prior approval and authorization of the ecclesiastical authority (cann. 1385 § 1, n. 3; 1386 § 2).
The solemn blessing of images to be exposed for public veneration is reserved to the Ordinary, who may nevertheless delegate any priest (can. 1279 § 4).
The incensation and blessing of images during sacred functions is permitted, as is the placing of lights and ornaments before them. As is well known, images exposed in churches must be veiled from the Saturday preceding Passion Sunday until the moment of the Gloria on Holy Saturday, except that of the Crucifix, which is unveiled at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.
Special norms are then established for precious images (for antiquity, artistic value and the worship paid to them), which cannot be restored without the written consent of the Ordinary (can. 1280), nor be alienated or transferred in perpetuity to another church without the permission of the Holy See (can. 1281 § 1).
Bibliography2 works
Rodolfo Danieli