Appendix Chapter III: The Worship of Images

Chapter III: The Worship of Images

CHAPTER III THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES An image (imago, is a representation or likeness of any person, sculptured, drawn, painted or otherwise made perceptible to the sight. The person represented is known as the “prototype,” while the image itself is called “ectype.” The veneration of holy images, like that of relics, is a purely relative worship (cultus relativus), as its formal object consists in the sanctity of the person whom it represents, not in the material image itself. The Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicsea (A. D. 787) says: ‘The honor given to an image passes to the prototype thereof, and he who worships an image, worships in the image the person of him whom it represents.” 1 Images of God and the Saints differ toto coelo from idols. An idol (simulacrum, ctSwAov) is the representation of a false god, while a holy image in the Christian sense is the pictorial representation of the true God or of a genuine Saint. A Saint is venerated but not adored. Hence it is a rude and gratuitous insult to charge Catholics with being idolaters because they venerate the images 1 ” Imaginis enim honor ad pritni- rat in eo depicti subsistentiam tivum (trpwrdTVirov) transit, et qui {viroffraa-Lv)** (Denzinger-Bannadorat [i. e., colit] imaginem, ado- wart, n. 302.) 162 of Saints. ” How are we idolaters,” demanded the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, ” who honor and worship the bones, the ashes, the garments, and the tombs of the martyrs precisely for the reason that they refused to sacrifice to idols ? ” 2 Thesis I: Holy images must not be worshipped as such. This is de fide. Proof. The Seventh Ecumenical Council (A. D. 787) says: ‘The more frequently they [the Saints] are beheld by means of images, the more keenly are those who view them moved to remember and desire their originals, to kiss them and to pay them the tribute of worship, not, however, divine worship, which according to our faith is due solely to the Divine Nature.” 3 One of the Fathers of this council, Bishop Constantius of Constantia (a city on the island of Cyprus), said in a public confession of faith: “I, though unworthy, assent to these truths … accepting and embracing with honor the holy and venerable images. Adoration, which consists in 2 ” Quomodo sumus idololatrae, qui et ipsa ossa et cinerem et pannos et sanguinem et tumulum martyrum ideo honoramus et adoramus [. e., colimus], quia idolis non sacrificaverunt?” {Acta Cone, Ecum, VII., 4.) 3 ” Quanto frequentius per imaginaletn formationem videntur, tanto qui has [imagines] contemplantur, alacrius eriguntur ad primitivorum (irpwTOTfiircw) earum memoriam et desiderium, ad osculum et ad honorariam his adorationem {irpodKVv^civ) tribuendam, non tamen ad veram latriam, quae secundum fidem est quaeque solam divinam naturom decet, impertiendam (oti fi^p rijv Karh irlarip iffiuiv aXfjOivifP Xarpelav fj irpiirct fiorn rff Oelq, 0forcc)>” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 302.) APPENDIX latria, i. e., the worship due to God, I render only to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity. And I exclude from the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church all those who do not hold and proclaim this doctrine, and pronounce anathema upon them/’ 4 This perfectly orthodox confession was later circulated among the Franks in a garbled translation, thus: “I accept and embrace with honor the holy and venerable images according to the worship of adoration which I give to the consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, and I exclude from the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, etc.” 6 This mistranslation led a synod held at Frankfort in 794 to assume a hostile attitude towards the Council of Nicaea.6 Pope Hadrian the First cleared up the misunderstanding, and the Second Council of Nicsea was subsequently recognized as ecumenical by the Western Church.7 4 ” Ego indignus his consentio … suscipiens et amplectens honorabiliter sanctas et venerabiles imagines; at que adorationem, quae per latriam, i. e., Deo debitam servitutem eMcitur, soli supersubstantiali et vivificae Trinitati impendo. Et qui ita non sapiunt neque praedicant, a sancta catholica et apostolica Ecclesia segrego et anathemati subiicio.” (Hardouin, Cone, t. IV, p. 151.) 5 ” Suscipio et atnplector honorabiliter sanctas et venerandas imagines secundum servitium adorationis, quod consubstantiali et vivificatrici Trinitati emitto, et qui sic non sentiunt, etc.” (Migne, P. L., XCVIII, 1 148.) 6 Can. 2 : ” Allata est in medium quaestio de nova Graecorum synodo, quam de adorandis imaginibus Constantinopoli fecerunt, in qua scripturn habebatur, ut qui imaginibus sanctorum ita ut deificae Trinitati servitium out adorationem non impenderent, anathemate iudicarentur. Qui supra SS. Patres nostri omnimodis adorationem et servitutem renuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condemnaverunt” (Mansi, Condi., t. VIII, p. 909.) 7 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XV, a) For the Scriptural argument we must refer the reader to our treatise on God.8 An explicit prohibition of image worship occurs in Ex. XX, 4 sq. : “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,9 nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them : I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children . . It may be objected that this text forbids the making of images. It does, but only for the reason that the Jewish people were inclined to idolatry. The veneration of holy images is not a positive command, but the Church is free either to introduce and encourage, or to limit and even to prohibit it where there is danger of serious abuse, as there might be, for example, in a country whose inhabitants were but just converted from idolatry.10 b) The true Tradition is attested by all those Fathers who were quoted by the iconoclasts of the eighth and sixteenth centuries against the veneration of images. For in matter of fact those Fathers did no more than oppose the ado12 sqq.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 2nd ed., pp. 690 sqq., Freiburg 1877. 8 Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 2nd ed., pp. 212 sqq. 9 The Septuagint has eidwXov. 10 Cfr. St. John Damascene, Or. de Imag., 1, n. 8. On canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, which presents some difficulties, see F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche A bhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 346 sqq., Paderborn 1897. i66 APPENDIX ration of images, in doing which they were in perfect harmony with the invariable teaching of the Church. St. John Damascene, the great champion of Catholic truth against the Greek Iconoclasts, answered his opponents as follows : ” All the passages which you bring forward do not stamp as a crime the worship we give to images, but the practice of the heathen, who make idols of them.,, 11 St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who stood in the forefront of the battle,12 was as emphatic in condemning the adoration of images as he was in defending the traditional custom of venerating them. ” This,” he says, ” is the reason for the making of images : we do not transfer the adoration in spirit and truth, which is due to the incomprehensible and inaccessible Divinity, to images made by human hands; but we show the love which we rightly cherish for the true servants of the Lord, and by honoring them, honor God.” 13 c) The prohibition of the Seventh Ecumencial Council also includes representations of Christ, though, of course, our Saviour, being true God, is entitled to divine worship.14 a) There seems to be a contradiction between the teaching of this Council and that of St. Thomas, who, together with many of the older Scholastics, holds that images of Christ, nay even those of His holy Cross, 11 Or. de Imag., 2, n. 17. Cfr. Billuart, De Jncarn., diss. 23, art. 3. §3. 12 He was forcibly deposed by Emperor Leo the Isaurian and died a victim of cruel persecution, A. D. 733. 13 Ep. ad Ioa. Episc. Synad., apud Hardouin, Concil., IV, 242. 14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 27S sqq. THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES are entitled to divine adoration (cult us latriae).16 How is this apparent contradiction to be explained? Some modern theologians assume that the early Scholastics were unacquainted with the definition of Nicaea. We prefer the following explanation. The cultus latriae which St. Thomas demands for images of Christ and for His true Cross, is merely a relative worship, essentially distinct from the cultus latriae absolutus due to our Saviour Himself. The Angelic Doctor frequently insists on these two fundamental principles: (i) The rational creature alone is entitled to honor and reverence, and any reverence shown to an irrational creature must in some way or other be referred to a rational creature ; ie 15 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 3: “Duplex est motus (internus) in imaginem: unus quidem in ipsam imaginem, secundum quod res quaedam est; alio mo do in imaginem, inquantum est imago alterius; et inter hos duos motus est haec differentia, quia primus motus, quo quis movetur in imaginem ut est res quaedam, est alius a motu qui est in rem; secundus autem motus, qui est in imaginem inquantum est imago, est unus et idem cum illo qui est in rem. Sic ergo dicendum est, quod imagini Christi, inquantum est res quaedam, puta lignum sculptum vel pictum, nulla reverentia habetur, quia reverentia nonnisi rationali naturae debetur, Relinquitur ergo quod exhibeatur ei reverentia solum inquantum est imago, et sic sequitur, quod eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi Christo. Quum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est, quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda.” St. Thomas consistently extends this principle to the true Cross of our Divine Saviour. Cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 4: “Si ergo loquamur de ipsa cruce, in qua Christus crucifixus est, utroque modo est a nobis veneranda. Uno scil. modo, inquantum repraesentat nobis figuram Christi extensi in ea; alio modo ex contactu ad membra Christi et ex hoc, quod eius sanguine est perfusa. Unde utroque modo adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, scil. adoratione latriae. Et propter hoc etiam crucem alloquimur et deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum * (as in the hymn * O crux, ave, spes unica”). He adds on the general subject of crucifixes (/. c.) : ” Si vero loquamur de efiigie crucis Christi in quacumque alia materia, puta lapidis vel ligni, argenti vel auri, sic veneramur crucem tantum ut imaginem Christi, quam veneramur adoratione latriae.’ 16 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 4 : ” Honor seu reverentia non debetur nisi rationali naturae, creaturae autem insensibili [i. e., irrationali] non debetur honor vel reverentia nisi ratione rationales naturae.” i68 APPENDIX (2) Adoration is due solely to God and can be given to no creature on its own account (i. e., absolutely).17 In teaching, therefore, that an image of Christ must be worshipped eadem adoratione as our Lord Himself, St. Thomas evidently conceives the adoration due to the image as a cultus latriae relativus, a worship which reverts to Christ and consequently can no more be branded as idolatry than the honor rendered to a king’s image can be termed superstition. This teaching is in consonance with that of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which condemns the worship of images only in so far as it is liable to degenerate into idolatry. It is true, however, that according to the Nicene Council there is something in the images themselves which entitles them to veneration, inasmuch as they are ” sacred objects ” (res sacrae, oaia) and as such must be treated with reverence.18 This St. Thomas seems to have overlooked. f$) If the true Cross is entitled to a relative cultus latriae because it touched the sacred body of Christ and was sprinkled with His blood, why are we forbidden to exhibit a like worship to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose connexion with our Divine Lord was so much more intimate? St. Thomas answers this question as follows: ” The rational creature can be venerated for its own sake. And therefore divine worship (latria) is due to no mere rational creature. The Blessed Virgin is a mere rational 17 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 5 : ” Latria soli Deo debetur, nulli creaturae debetur latria, prout creaturam secundum se [. e, absolute] veneramur.” 18 Synod. Nicaen. II (a. 787): ”… ita ut istis [imaginibus] sicut figurae pretiosae ac vivificae cruets et Sanctis evangeliis et reliquis sacris monumentis, incensorum et luminum oblatio ad harum honorem efRciendum exhibeatur… . Imaginis enim honor ad primitivum transit, et qui adorat imaginem, adorat in ea depicti subsist entiam.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 302. Cfr. on this subject Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 378 sq., Freiburg 1909.) THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 169 creature and consequently not entitled to divine worship, but solely to the veneration called dulia, in a higher degree, however, than other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God ; and for this reason we say that she is entitled not to any kind of dulia, but to hyperdulia.” 19 Billuart points out that this hyperdulic worship is absolute and therefore more perfect than the purely relative cultus latriae, which may be exhibited to inanimate objects.20 Thesis II: The pious veneration of holy images is licit and useful. This is also an article of faith. If those who adore images sin per excessutn, those who deny the Catholic doctrine of the veneration of images sin per defectum. The chief champions of the last-mentioned error were the Iconoclasts of the eighth century and the Zwinglians and Calvinists,21 together with a few minor sects, in the sixteenth. Against the Iconoclasts the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787) 22 defined that, ” as the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, so also the holy and venerable images — whether of color, or of stone, or of any other appropriate material — are suitably set up in 19 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 5 : ” Creatura rationalis est capax venerationis secundum seipsam [ = absolute], Et ideo nulli purae creaturae rationale debetur cultus latriae. Quum igitur beata Virgo sit pura creatura rationalis, non debetur ei adoratio latriae, sed solum veneratio duliae, eminentius tamen quam ceteris creaturis, inquantum ipsa est mater Dei; et ideo dicitur quod debetur ei non qualiscumque dulia, sed hyperdulia.’* 20 Billuart, De Jncarn., diss. 23, art. 4. Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 35, sect. 2. 21 Cfr. Calvin’s Instit., I, 2; IV, 9. 22 On this Council see A. Fortescue in the Catholic Encyclopediat Vol. VII, pp. 622 sq.’ 170 APPENDIX the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and garments, on walls and tables, in houses and on roads : namely the image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ and that of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and those of the venerable angels and of all holy and pious men.” 28 The Council of Trent teaches : ” The images of Christ, and of His Virgin Mother, and of other Saints, are to be used and retained, especially in churches, and due honor and veneration is to be given them ; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be honored, or that anything is to be asked of them, or 23 Denzinger-Bann wart, n. 302 : ‘Opl^ofiep avv aKptfiela irda-n Kal ifi/icXela* irapairXrja l Kal irdvrwv dyltav Kal balwv dvbp&v. The current Latin translation renders this passage as follows: ” Definimus in omni certitudine ac diligentia, sicut figurant pretiosae ac vivificae crucis, ita venerabiles ac sanctas imagines proponendas tarn quae de colqribus et tessellis, quam quae ex alia materia congruent er in Sanctis Dei ecclesiis, et sacris vasts et vestibus, et in parietibus ac tabulis, domibus et viis: tarn videl. imaginem Domini Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi quam intemeratae dominae nostrae s» Dei genitricis, honor abiliumque angelorum et omnium sanctorum simul et almorum vivorum. Quant o enim frequentius, etc.” {V. supra, p. 163.) The infinitive dvarlOeadait which is translated ” proponendas * (sc. esse), means either: * [we define] that they (eUovas) are set up,* or (less in accordance with grammar) * that they should be set up.” Since vapairX’nclws with the dative has the force of : ” with the same appropriateness as,” ” equally as” we translate: . . that they are as appropriately set up [placed] … as the … cross.” The last part of the sentence: … rys re rov Kvplov … Xptarov eUovos* is rendered by the Latin translation according to the sense: tarn videlicet imaginem. The Greek genitive cIkSpos seems to depend in a way on rtfir^> • • • » hardly on ras eUSvaS’ It may be well to add that tfXijs eVtriydelarc exotfcnyj is 0\ijs imrridelas obeys* or simply CXris imTrjdelaS’ The Latin translation somewhat obscures the meaning. It may be noted that this definition proved a source of inspiration and a guiding principle to Christian artists for all time. that any confidence is to be placed in images, as was done by the heathen of old who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the originals which they represent ; so that by the images we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and fall down, we adore Christ and venerate His Saints, whose likeness they represent.,, 24 It follows that the worship which we Catholics give to holy images is purely relative according to the originals represented, and this relative worship is either latreutic, dulic or hyperdulic, as the case may be. a) The Old Testament furnishes several instances in confirmation of the Catholic dogma of the veneration of images.26 Thus Yahweh Himself commanded: “Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle… . Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by .thee.” 26 For the Ark of the Covenant the Jews had the 24 Sess. XXV (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 986) : ” Imagines porro Christi, Deiparae Virginis et aliorutn Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas et retinendas ex s que debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in Us divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit fig en da, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed 12 quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa quae illae repraesentant, ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, etc,” (ut supra, p. 142). 25 Attention was called to this fact as early as 780 by Pope Hadrian I, in his reply to the Greek Emperor Constantine and his mother Irene. Cfr. Mansi, Condi., XIII 528 sqq. 26 Ex. XXV, 18, 22. 172 APPENDIX greatest veneration. Cfr. Jos. VII, 6: “Josue rent his garments, and fell flat on the ground before the ark of the Lord until the evening, both he and all the ancients of Israel: and they put dust upon their heads.* Another example in point is the brazen serpent. Numb. XXI, 8: And the Lord said to him: Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: Whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. This serpent, St. John tells us, was a type of the crucified Redeemer. Cfr. John III, 14: *As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” If the Jews were permitted to venerate the promised Messias under the image of a brazen serpent, why should we Christians be forbidden to adore Him under the figure of the Good Shepherd or the Crucified Saviour ? The Moors and Turks could hardly have chosen a more characteristic way of showing their contempt for our Divine Lord than by trampling upon the crucifix. What is true of the images of our Lord is also true, servatd proportione, of the images of His Blessed Mother and the Saints.27 b) The Second Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, A. D. 787) introduces its teaching on image worship 27 Cfr. L. Janssens, Christologia, p. 811, Freiburg 1891. by the remark that, in stating the Catholic doctrine in the way it does, it keeps to “the royal highway of tradition,” and concludes : “For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is to say, the tradition of the holy Catholic Church, will be made effective.” 28 Pope Hadrian I ( A. D. 780), in his dogmatic epistle to Constantine and Irene, appealed to the traditional practice of the Roman Church and quoted in its support a considerable number of ancient Fathers, e. g., Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, and Jerome.29 a) Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says in his commentary on the Psalms : ” Though we make images of saintly men, we do not venerate them as gods, but merely wish to be inspired by their example to imitate them. But the image of Christ we make in order to fire our hearts with love for Him. Assuredly we do not adore a perishable image or the likeness of a perishable man. But since God, without changing Himself, condescended to become man, we represent Him as a man, though we are well aware that He is by nature God. We do not, therefore, call the image God, but we know that He whom it represents is God.” 30 Theodoret relates that the Christians of Rome erected statuettes of St. Simon Stylites (d. 479) at the entrance 28 ” Sic enim robur obtinet SS. Epiphanius, and Augustine see F. Patrum nostrorum doctrina, u *. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abtraditio sanctae catholicae Ecclesiae.” handlungen und Untersuchungen, (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 302.) 29 Mansi, /. c. On the peculiar attitude of Eusebius of Caesarea, Vol. I, pp. 349 sqq. ;30 In Ps., 113, 16.

174 APPENDIX of their workshops, in order ” thereby to assure themselves of protection and safety.” 81 The lack of examples showing that the veneration of images was practiced in the first three centuries, which used to be deplored by Catholic theologians,32 has been supplied by the recent discovery in the Roman catacombs of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and other Saints.33 ft) While Tradition leaves no doubt that the veneration of the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints (as well as of the angels) 34 has always been considered licit in the Church, the case is different with representations of God and the Trinity. With regard to these we can quote no such binding definitions as those we have adduced in reference to the former class of holy images.35 Nevertheless, presentday theologians are agreed as to the permissibility of making and venerating images of God and the Trinity, provided no attempt is made to picture the Divine Nature itself. It is in this sense that we must interpret the warning of St. John of Damascus : ” If we were to make an image of the invisible God, we should in truth go wrong ; for it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless.” 36 When this danger is excluded, the Divinity may be pictured either by way of a historical theophany (e. g., the Yahweh- Angel appearing in the flaming fire of the bush) or allegorically (as, for instance, when, to symbolize His 31 Hist. Re!., c. 26. 82 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., n. 506. 33 Cfr. Wilpert, Die Malereien in den Katakomben Roms, Freiburg 1903; Liell, Die Darstellungen der allerseligsten Jungfrau und Gottesgebarerin Maria auf den Kunstdenkmalern in den Katakomben, Freiburg 1887. 34 Synod, Nicaen. II, supra p. 170. 85 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 23, art. 3, §4. 36 Or. de lmag.t 2, n. 5. THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES eternity, God is represented as an old man,37 or His omniscience is emblemed by a seeing eye88), etc. Pope Alexander VIII (A. D. 1690) condemned the proposition : * It is wrong to exhibit in a Christian church a picture representing God the Father in a sitting posture.* 89 With regard to representations of the Blessed Trinity, Pius VI protested against the sweeping condemnation of the pseudo-council of Pistoja as follows: ” The prohibition which generally and indiscriminately ranges representations of the inscrutable Trinity among those images which should be banished from the Church because they furnish an occasion of error to the unlearned, is too general in its terms and therefore rash and contrary to the pious custom practiced by the Church ; for there are representations of the Trinity which are universally approved and may be safely permitted.,, 40 The Pope’s remark does, however, contain a warning to Christian artists to be careful in depicting the Trinity. The safest policy is to adhere to the traditional and approved symbols. It would certainly be improper to represent the triune God as a man with three heads or three faces.41 Catechists and preachers should instruct the faithful in the meaning of current symbolic images of God and the Trinity.42 c) Though there is no room for dispute as regards the permissibility of the veneration of 87Cfr. Dan. VII, 9. S8Cfr. Ecclus. XXIII, 27. 89 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 13 15. 40 Constit. ” Auctorem fidei” A. D. 1 794 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1569). 41 ” Si pingeretur Trinitas sub specie unius hominis habentis tria capita vel tres fades/’ (Billuart, 1. c) 42 On the iconography of the Deity and Trinity in ancient Christian art, cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, Christ lie he Archaologie, pp. 39a sq., Paderborn 1905. 176 APPENDIX images, theologians disagree as to the manner in which they should be venerated. De Lugo distinguishes two separate questions : ( 1 ) Whether holy images may be venerated, and (2) How they should be venerated. The first question, he says, is in dispute between Catholics and heretics, the second, among Catholics. The first is easier of solution than the second.43 o) Some Catholic divines (notably Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro) hold that holy images are not in themselves worthy of veneration, but merely furnish an occasion to honor their originals. This opinion militates both against common sense and the defined teaching of the Church. A devoted son who kisses the image of his mother obviously honors the image itself, because of its relation to one who is near and dear to him. Similarly a Catholic uncovers his head and kneels before the statue of a Saint, and not before the Saint himself whom the statue represents, thus showing that he regards the image as something more than a mere ornament or means of instruction. The official teaching of the Church is perfectly plain on this point. The Seventh Ecumenical Council refers* to the images of the Saints as ” venerable and holy/’ while that of Trent declares them to be entitled to honor and reverence.44 A still plainer expression is that of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (A. D. 869), which says : ” It is becoming that, in harmony with reason and a very ancient tradition, holy images be derivatively 48 De Lugo, De MysU Incarn., disp. 36, sect. 2 : ” Duplex potest esse in hoc quaestio: prima, utrum imagines sint adorandae \co\endae; secunda, quo mo do sint adorandae. Prima est cum haereticis, secunda cum Catholicis; prima facilis, secunda difRcilis.” 44 V» supra, p. 170. honored and adored, in reference, namely, to the originals which they represent, just like the holy book of the Gospels and the figure of the precious Cross.” 45 This view is in harmony with the universal practice of the faithful, — which was expressly defended by Pope Pius VI against the pseudo-council of Pistoja, — of showing particular veneration and attributing special titles of honor to miraculous images of the Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and preserving certain holy images under cover so that they cannot be seen.46 The opinion of Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro is unanimously rejected by modern theologians. /?) Other divines hold that the veneration of the faithful is directed both to the image and its prototype, relative et secundario to the one, absolute et primario to the other. In otfier words, the image and its original together constitute the adequate total object of the cult; the image being venerated solely for the sake of, and in reference to, the original. According to this theory representations of God and Christ are entitled to a latreutic, those of the Blessed Virgin Mary to a hyperdulic, those of the angels and Saints to a merely relative dulic cult. St. Thomas,47 St. Bonaventure, Capreolus, Soto, Vasquez, Antoine, and other theologians support this teaching by weighty arguments both from reason and authority. In the first place, they say, no inanimate object is entitled to a cult which would, as it were, bend the 45 ” Dignum est, ut secundum at que typus pretiosae cruets/’ congruentiam rationis et antiquissi- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 337.) mam traditionem propter honor em, 46 Cfr. Constit. ” Auctorem fidei,” quia ad principalia [prototypal ipsa A. D. 1794 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. referuntur, etiam derivative iconae 1570 sqq.). honor entur et adorentur, aeque ut 47 V. supra, p. 167. sanctorum sacer Evangeliorum liber

178 APPENDIX faithful Catholic beneath the image. A person, as such, is always superior to a mere material object. The exterior submission exhibited to an image, therefore, considered as the manifestation of an interior sentiment, can only refer to the original, and consequently the worship given to holy images, strictly and properly speaking, is purely relative. For this reason many councils have emphasized the proposition that ” the honor shown to a holy image is referred to its prototype/’ 48 Cardinal Bellarmine objects that the language employed by the champions of this direct, though relative cult, is dangerous because it gives offence to Catholics and furnishes heretics an occasion for blasphemy.49 Bossuet expresses a more judicious view when he observes : ” St. Thomas says the Cross is worthy of latria, which is the highest form of worship. But he explains that such latria is relative, and not supreme except when it refers to Jesus Christ. The ground upon which the holy Doctor bases his argument is that the worship shown to an image is identical with that shown to its original, and that both are thus combined. Who would censure this opinion? If the terms in which it is couched displease us, let us simply give them up, as Fr. Petavius has done; for the Church has never adopted this phraseology of St. Thomas. But it is a sign of great weakness and vanity to marvel at a theory which is so reasonable.,, 50 48 V. supra, p. 171. On a similar but misunderstood phrase in St. Basil’s treatise De Spiritu Sancto (c. 1 8, 45), cfr. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. II, pp. 251 sqq. 49 Bellarmine, De I mag., II, 22: ” Hunc loqucndi modum non carere mag no periculo … offendere aures Catholicorum el praebere occasionem haereticis liberius blosphemandi.” 50 Bossuet, Oeuvres, Vol. V, p. 277, Paris 1743: ”.S”. Thomas attribue a la croix le culte de latrie, qui est le culte supreme. Mais il s’explique en disant que c’est une latrie respective, qui des la en elleme me n’est plus supreme et ne le devient que parce qWelle se rapTHE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 179 p) Bellarmine held, — and his opinion was shared, among others, by Catharinus and Platel, — that holy images may indeed be venerated for their own sake, but with a lesser cult than the originals, and that no image, not even that of the Divinity itself, is entitled to a relative divine worship (cultus latriae relativus). This theological school demands that in exhibiting veneration to a holy image, we subject ourselves to it not only in body, but with mind and heart, not indeed for the sake of the image, but with a view to its original. This theory, too, can be defended by solid arguments. The conciliar definitions which deal with the subject demand no higher cult for any sacred image than that which we give to the book of the holy Gospels or to sacred vessels, neither of which class of objects is entitled to the cultus latriae relativus. Again, an image, as such, is inferior to its original, and not entitled to the same kind of worship. There is a specific difference between adoration and veneration. If Christ were to re-appear in person, we should worship Him in a different manner than we venerate His image. The civil law makes an analogous distinction by punishing personal insults against those in authority more severely than disrespect shown to their pictures.51 Porte 6 Jesus-Christ, Le fondement de ce saint docteur c’est que le mouvement qui porte a Vintage est le meme que celui qui porte a V original, et qu’on unit ensemble I’un et I’ autre. Qui peut blamer ce senst Personne, sans doute. Si I’expression deplait, il n’y a qu’a la laisser Id, comme a fait sans hesiter le P. Pitau; car I’iglise n’a pas adopts cette expression de S. Thomas, Mais on sera bien faible et bien vain, si on est etonne de choses qui ont un sens si raisonnable.” On the view held by St. Thomas, V. supra, pp. 166 sqq. 51 Attempts have been made to reconcile the second and the third of the above described theories. Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn,, diss. 23, art. 3, 85, and De Lugo, De Myst, Incarn., disp. 36, sect. 3. See also G. B. Tepe, Instit, Theol., Vol III. pp. 747 sqq. i8o APPENDIX The worship of images (taking the latter term in its widest sense) corresponds to a deeply ingrained sentiment of human nature. To analyze this sentiment is the task of philosophy. We leave it to the psychologists to explain why the image of a King or President should be privately and publicly honored by manifestations of respect such as the uncovering of heads, the discharging of cannon, and the lowering of flags. If such exterior tributes of veneration may be properly paid to secular rulers, they are surely not out of place when rendered to Almighty God and the angels and Saints who rule with Him in Heaven. Readings: — Petavius, De Incarnatione, XIV, 11-18. — De Lugo, De Mysterio Incamationis, disp. 36-37. — Radowitz, Ikonographie der Heiligen, Berlin 1852. — *Garucci, Storia dell’ Arte Cristiana nei Primi Otto Secoli della Chiesa, Prato 1872 sqq. — CI. Liidtke, Die Bilderverehrung und die bildlichen Darstellungen in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Freiburg 1874. — F. X. Kraus, Roma Sotteranea, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1901. — H. Detzel, Christliche Ikonographie, 2 vols., Freiburg 1894-96. — Molanus, De Historia Sanctorum Imaginum et Picturarum (Migne, Theol. Cursus Completus, t. XXVII) ; E. Vacandard, Etudes de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuse, Serie III, pp. 177-212, Paris 1912. — For an account of the Image Controversy see J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. Ill, pp. 421-467, St. Louis 1916.