IMAGES, CULT OF. — It is the honor rendered to sacred images, that is, to 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, and the Angels. The cult of images often includes that rendered to the Cross, relics, the book of the Gospel, and consecrated objects, because it does not differ essentially from the former. It is a relative cult, that is, one directed not to the image or sacred object in 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 worship accorded to them. History recalls men who promoted the use and opposed the worship of images. In the Church, use preceded worship, which developed only gradually. Their use goes back to the origins. The Old Testament seemed opposed both to the use and to the worship of images, as appears to be deduced from Ex. 24:4: « You shall make no image or figure of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is on the earth, or that is in the depths of the abyss ». In reality, this prohibition was never absolute, at least during a certain period; one may think, for example, of the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant and of the bronze serpent (Ex. 25:18; 37:7-9; Num. 21:8-9; Reg. 7:25). It was in the period following the Exile, especially in the age of the Maccabees, that Judaism began to proscribe every image for fear of idolatry.
The many paintings in the catacombs, the sculptures on Christian sarcophagi, and certain statues of the Good Shepherd clearly show that the Church used images from the very beginning. Tertullian speaks of the image of the Good Shepherd found on chalices (De pudicitia, 7, 10), and Eusebius of Caesarea says that he had seen with his own eyes painted images of SS. Peter and Paul and of Jesus (Hist. eccl., 7, 18). Only a few isolated voices, relying on the authority of the Old Testament, disapproved of this use; the names usually mentioned are Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius. The Council of Elvira (305 or 306) states in can. 36: « Placuit pictura in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur ». In a letter to Constantia, the 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). For a long time it was 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, survives. There is, however, reason to believe that this letter was tampered with by the iconoclasts (cf. Mansi, XIII, 292). In the fourth and fifth centuries the use of images is found everywhere. As for worship properly so called, it is manifested chiefly in connection with the Cross. With regard to specific images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin, and the saints, the testimonies are much rarer. One must reach the sixth and seventh centuries to find entirely explicit evidence. The acheiropoietic images (v.) date from this period: these images were unquestionably accorded a special veneration. Toward the end of the sixth century, Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, in his fiftieth apologetic discourse against the Jews, defended Christians against the accusation of idolatry and already traced the first outlines of the theology of the worship of the Cross and of images (PG 93, 1597-1609). In the West, the poet Fortunatus refers to a lamp burning before the image of St. Martin. St. Gregory the Great censures the bishop of Marseille, Serenus, who had dared to break the images in order to remove from the people the danger of idolatry (Epist., 11, 13). Elsewhere, the same saint speaks of veneration for the Cross and the sacred images (Epist., 9, 6). The only opponents to wage war against the use and worship of images were the Jews and the Manichaean sects, for example, the Paulicians of Asia Minor. To them must be added certain Monophysite theologians of the early period: Philoxenus of Mabbug, Severus of Antioch, and Peter the Fuller; they were not, however, followed by the Monophysite Churches, which retained the worship of images in the Byzantine manner (cf. M. Jugie, Theologia Orientalium dissidentium, V, Paris 1935, pp. 577-83). When the first iconoclastic persecution broke out in 726, the Church everywhere possessed not only the use but also the worship of images, which had, in fact, already given rise to certain abuses.
The iconoclastic persecutions (v. ICONOCLASM) had repercussions in the West. As soon as the heresy appeared, it was condemned at the Councils of Rome in 731 and 769. It was also discussed at the Synod held at Gentilly (769). A genuine controversy concerning the worship of images arose only under Charlemagne, after the Second Council of Nicaea (v. CARIOCINESI, LIBRI). Pope Hadrian I had to defend the Council and demonstrate its orthodoxy, but the Frankish theologians perhaps remained unconvinced. It is certain that, a few years later, the Frankish bishops warmly welcomed the letter written by the Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer to Louis the Pious (824). The emperor Michael was a moderate iconomach. He rejected the worship of images but accepted their use. The Frankish bishops, with the approval of Pope Eugene II (824-27), wished to hold an assembly at Paris in 825 in order to examine the question of worship. The documents they sent to Rome reveal them to have been stubborn opponents of worship. They censured both the Council of Nicaea and Pope Hadrian, and accepted the theses of the Carolingian books. 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 worship of the Saints and their relics. The work he wrote to justify his conduct was refuted by the monk Dungal of Saint-Denis and by Jonas, bishop of Orléans, whose doctrine approached the definition of Nicaea; this definition 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 worship of images, and even simply their use, had opponents sometimes no less zealous than the Byzantine iconoclasts. In the East, the Bogomils, related to the Paulicians; in the West, Peter and Henry of Bruys, the Wycliffites, and the Hussites despised images, especially the Cross. The Protestants, too, waged war against images and destroyed them; the Calvinists were particularly notable, and they were responsible for the ruin of numerous precious treasures of Christian art. Against them, the Council of Trent once again proclaimed the legitimacy of the worship of images.
In the East, after the iconoclastic struggle, and down to the present day, especially in Russia, the worship of icons has undergone an extraordinary development, which may be considered excessive. While statues are prohibited, painted images abound and are objects of worship not only in churches but also in private homes and almost everywhere. The West has shown itself much more moderate. Many images are not objects of worship properly so called, but are used as ornament and as an instructional means: for example, frescoes, mosaics, and painted windows. Certain ancient icons are objects of special veneration, and above all the statues of Our Lord, the Madonna, and the Saints.
II. DOCTRINE
That the use of images is legitimate and useful is a truth of the experimental order, which requires no demonstration. Images are used continually both in family life and in social life, as the monuments and portraits of kings, great men, and relatives demonstrate. There is therefore no reason why their use should be forbidden in the religious sphere, or why one should not 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 rise to the knowledge and love of the spiritual and invisible world. The image serves the threefold function of ornament, decorating places of worship; of instruction, bringing the illiterate and ignorant to knowledge of the episodes of sacred history and of the truths taught by the catechism, and recalling these same truths to everyone’s mind; and of encouragement to piety: indeed, the sight of an image arouses feelings of respect, veneration, love, and confidence toward the person it represents and with whom it brings us into relation.The nature, moreover, of the worship properly so called that is rendered to images as such was defined in three ecumenical councils: the Second Council of Nicaea
(787), the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869–870), and 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... and to render them respect and honorific worship (τιμητικὴ τροχόλησιν); certainly not the worship of true and proper latria, which belongs only to God, 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 to the prototype, and he who venerates the image venerates 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 de-
(phot. Vatican Library)
The worship of which images are the object is therefore a relative worship, which is not limited to the material of which the image is made, but refers to the original, in the sense that the external signs of veneration given to the image are inwardly directed toward the original; and it is precisely on account of the latter that the image is honored. There is no case in which such external signs of veneration given to an image can be defined as acts of adoration, even if this be relative adoration. It is true that St. Thomas and many other theologians after him spoke precisely of relative adoration with regard to 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 worship of images, adoration, properly so called latria, is always absolute and refers only to God. According to the definition of the Council of Nicaea, there is no difference in nature between the worship rendered to the Cross and to the images of the Savior and that rendered to the images of the Saints. The fact that the scholastics used the expression «relative adoration» is due to their having been unaware of the definition of the Council of Nicaea and to their having lived before the Council of Trent. In any event, the difference between them and the ancient Fathers is more formal than substantial. When one finds oneself before an image of Jesus, one may abstract from it and behave as though the original of that image were personally present. The image then represents a mere occasion for rendering the Savior the worship of adoration, which is always absolute worship.
The worship of images is in itself lawful and useful, but not necessary. The Church could also, for particular reasons, suppress it temporarily. If she defended it so vigorously against the iconoclasts, it was only because they accused her of error and idolatry.
III. CANON LAW
In order to be objects of veneration, images must not represent anything contrary to faith and good morals; they must conform to what is related, with regard to what they depict, in Sacred Scripture and tradition, and must not be invalitae, in which case they may not be displayed without the approval of the Ordinary; finally, in garments and colours, they must not depart from the discipline approved by the Church (CIC, cann. 1279 and 1399, 12). They may not be carved into the pavement. Printed images, with or without prayers added, must have the prior approval and authorization of ecclesiastical authority (cann. 1385 § 1, n. 3; 1386 § 2).The solemn blessing of images to be displayed for public veneration is reserved to the Ordinary, who may nevertheless delegate any priest (can. 1279 § 4).
The incensing and blessing of images during sacred functions, and the placing before them of lights and ornaments, are permitted. As is well known, images displayed in churches must be veiled from the Saturday preceding Passion Sunday until the Gloria on Holy Saturday, except for that of the Crucifix, which is unveiled at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.
Special norms are also established for precious images (on account of their antiquity, artistic value, and the veneration paid to them), which may not be restored without the written consent of the Ordinary (can. 1280), nor alienated or permanently transferred to another church without the permission of the Holy See (can. 1281 § 1).