One topic I have studied in some detail is
the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) dogma about the veneration of icons/images.
Indeed, the overwhelming biblical and especially historical evidence against
this dogma is proof that Rome is not the true Church (see the
listing of articles at Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons).
In his recent book, With One Accord:
Affirming Catholic Teaching Using Protestant Principles (El Cajon, Calif.:
Catholic Answers Press, 2020), Douglas Beaumont has a discussion of the
Catholic use of statues and icons on pp. 64-69. As with so many pop-level
Catholic treatments of the issue, Beaumont appears to think that the issue is
simply having images and the Catholic use of them as devotional aids merely.
Consider the following representative statements in his discussion of this
topic:
CATHOLICISM AFFIRMS: it is allowable and
proper to have religiously representative objects in public places, homes, and
churches. (p. 65)
As this verse [Lev
26:1; cf. Exo 20:4] makes more clear, the problem is not the making of these
things but making them in order to worship them . . . Obviously the problem
with graven images is not simply that something is carved or something is
erected in a place of worship, but that something is worshipped in place of the
true God. (p. 66, emphasis in original)
Sadly, many
Protestants think that Catholics worship statues and so the issue remains. (p.
66)
Even when Protestants
agree on the physical aspects of worship, some of the input and action in a
Catholic church—like praying before a statue or kissing an icon—can seem too
much idolatrous worship, no matter how much Catholics explain the difference
between worshipping an object as God and using an object as an aid to
worshiping the one true God. Yet even here there may be some helpful parallels
we can use to find accord.
Many Baptist churches
feature an American flag behind the area of the church that Catholics would
call the sanctuary . . . No one in those churches, however, ever think he’s
being asked to worship the flag . . . Neither do Protestants generally have a
problem with showing reverence to objects outside a worship setting for
example, by kissing the portrait of a loved one or visiting a deceased relative’s
gravestone. (p. 68)
CATHOLICISM AFFIRMS: We can use and
interact with objects to promote prayer and to remember God’s holy people
without being guilty of idolatry. (p. 69)
Beaumont is either ignorant or disingenuous
in his treatment of the topic of the Catholic dogmatic teachings about the veneration
of images (I will be kind and assume it is the latter, not the former). I
will not speak for Protestants (though I am well-read in [esp. Reformed]
Protestant theology), but it would usually be Fundamentalists who believe
Catholics are worshipping images of Mary and the Saints. Notwithstanding,
it is Catholic dogmatic teaching that images, not merely the “heavenly
prototypes” thereof, are given some form of religious veneration. Don’t take my
word on this. Consider the following from conciliar sources, acts of Second
Nicea, and respected Catholic dogmatic theologians and other sources:
Second Nicea (787)
[DS 600] (I. Definition) … We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men. [DS 601] For, how much more frequently through the imaginal formation they are seen, so much more quickly are those who contemplate these, raised to the memory and desire of the originals of these, to kiss and to render honorable adoration to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone; but just as to the figure of the revered and life-giving Cross and to the holy gospels, and to the other sacred monuments, let an oblation of incense and lights be made to give honor to these as was the pious custom with the ancients. “For the honor of the image passes to the original”; and he who shows reverence to the image, shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it.
The Acts of Second Nicea
The Acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70 [8th Ecumenical Council for Catholics]):
Fourth Session:
The ancient tradition of the holy fathers, which we received as something for us to follow from our predecessors the most blessed and orthodox pontiffs who after the blessed Peter presided in his apostolic see, has hitherto been kept and preserved intact by this holy catholic and apostolic church. It is therefore a duty, with the whole purpose of the mind and the exercise of a supreme desire, to venerate and adore images both of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his most holy Mother and of the blessed apostles and all the saints, and [117] to resist with all the energy we possess the madness of those schismatics who would prohibit the people form venerating them.
For nothing can be harmful to those in the peace of the church if the appropriate painting of figures of the saints produces in the faithful an increase of love, because, indeed, while they look at their faces and call what they did, God, who dwells within them, receives perfect praise. Certainly, if God, who, being invisible and incorporeal, appeared to the eyes of mortal men not in his own divine substance but through creatures subject to him, as a supreme privilege for those who believe, why should the souls of the saints, which, when still in the body, had the faces of each one and performed works pleasing to God according to his dispensation, not to be venerated by us with great honour? Why should we hate the images of those through whom we came to know the truth of the faith?
God, of course, appeared to our father Abraham not in the flesh nor in soul, but in the form of three men. Perceiving one thing and realizing it to be another, he fell to the ground and worshipped, saying, ‘Lord, if I have found grace in your eyes, I shall bring water and wash your feet’ and the rest. Abraham at once ‘believed in God, and this was impute to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. And later he appeared to Jacob in the form of a creature subject to him, which led Jacob to say, ‘I have seen God face to face and yet my life has been saved’. Behold, if the bodiless and invisible God willed to be seen by mortals in the form of a creature subject to himself, so that it should be a grace for those who believe, how can we be criticized because of the icons of the saints, whom we believe to have been bodily and visible, if we venerate them as true friends of Christ? For if their effigies were thought detestable, it is obvious that the relics of those whose flesh undergoes corruption in the grave ought to be considered of no worth—perish the thought!
But if our aim is to attain fellowship with them, it is obvious that everything in honour of the saints, that is, the remains not only of their bodies but also of their raiment and the mages of their faces as well, in whatever place [118] they are painted, are things that we ought to venerate with conspicuous honour, remembering how Isaiah testifies that we beheld the form of a creature subject [to God], when he says, ‘I saw the Lord of hosts seated on a high throne and those beings who were beneath him filled the temple’ and the rest. Moses and Aaron likewise went up and saw the throne where God was stead, and ‘there was under his feet as if a work of sapphire’ and (as it were) the firmament of heaven with the brilliance of lightning, and cherubim of pure gold standing around. For all these beings whom Solomon later set up in the temple, Moses saw in image and prefiguration when he was speaking with God on the mountain.
The fathers who preceded us, knowing all this and more, had images of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of his most holy Moher ever-Virgin and of all the saints painted on the walls of churches, as time proves today, and out of a fullness of love did not prohibit their painting in suitable places up till the present. What harm can it do a sincere Christian, on condition he does not treat as divine what he loves and cherishes to the point of worshipping it, but paints it on a wall or a panel or inspire awe and trembling? What harm is it, if we look at images of Christ in a church and meditate in the privacy of the heart on the coming of the one whose image we behold and who will soon come as judge of the living and the dead? What is contrary to our faith, if, since ‘the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’, our souls keenly desire [to see] in the center of the space above the altar the figure of the one whose image preserves the inscription of his name? And since we worship the one who is Son by nature, why should we not worship in virtue of adoption the new name written on a stone or gem?
[119] The holy alter on which we perform the votive sacrifices to almighty God is by nature a common stone, no different from other slabs which adorn our walls and pavements; but because it has been consecrated, it has received God’s help and blessing, which make it the holy table. Again the bread that is offered on it is indeed common bread; but when it has been consecrated by the sacrament, it becomes in truth and is called the body of Christ. Likewise ordinary wine is something worthy of existence even before it is blessed, but after sanctification by the Spirit it becomes the blood of Christ. The image of Christ, before it receives the figure of his form, is in the eyes of all merely common wood; but when it receives the likeness that in every way deserves veneration, it is sacred and terrible to demons, because that which is represented in it is Christ. (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 869-70 [trans. Richard Price; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 198-200)
Tenth Session:
That the image of our Lord Jesus Christ is to receive equal honour and veneration as the book of the holy gospels and the form of the precious cross, and likewise the images of his immaculate mother Mary the Mother of God and of all the saints and heavenly ministers.
We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all, is to be venerated with equal honour as is the book of the holy gospels. [312] For just as all obtain salvation through the eloquence of words contained in a book, so everyone, both the wise and the uneducated, receive benefit, from what is readily at hand, through the iconic effect of colours. For what speech in words teaches and recommends, so too does depiction in colours. And it is right, according to both rational appropriateness and ancient tradition, on account of the honour that is owed to the originals themselves, that imitative images should be honoured and venerated as well, no less than the sacred book of the holy gospels and the figure of the precious cross. If anyone, therefore, does not venerate the image of Christ the Saviour, may he not behold his form when he comes in his Father’s glory to be glorified and to glorify his saints, but may he be excluded from the splendour of his communion. Likewise, we paint the image of his immaculate mother Mary the Mother of God, and in addition the images of the holy angels, just as divine Scripture describes them in words, and we also honour and venerate those of the praiseworthy apostles, prophets, martyrs and holy men, together with those of all the saints. As for those who do not do so, may they be anathematized by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 869-70 [trans. Richard Price; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 392-93)
Council of Trent (session 25 [December 1563])
[DS 1823] Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration be extended to them, not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be venerated, or that anything is to be petitioned from them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as at one time was done by the gentiles, who placed their hope in idols [cf. Ps. 134:15 f.], but because the honor which is shown them, is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images, which we kiss and before which we bare the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear. This is what was sanctioned by the decrees of the councils, especially that of the second council of NICEA, against the opponents of Images [see n. 302 ff.].
Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a wantonness of beauty; nor shall men also pervert the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics, into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness. Finally, let so great care and diligence be used by bishops touching these matters, as that there appear nothing disorderly, or unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing profane, nothing indecorous; since holiness becometh the house of God.
Catechism of the Council of Trent ("Roman Catechism") (1566)
Question XXIII
The
Saints, and also Christ, ought to be pictured and honoured
But to depict and honour the images of Christ our
Lord, of his most holy and most pure mother, and of all the other saints,
seeing that they, having been clothed with human nature, appeared in human
form, is not only not forbidden by this commandment, but has always been
esteemed a holy practice, and a most certain indication of a grateful mind.
This statement derives confirmation from the monuments of the apostolic age,
the general councils of the Church, and the writings of so many most holy and
learned Fathers, who are of one accord upon the subject.
Question XXIV
What
is the Legitimate Use of Images in the Church
But the pastor will not content himself with merely
showing the lawfulness of the use of images in churches, and of paying them
honour and respect, since this honour and respect are referred to their
prototypes; but be will also show that, up to the present time, this practice
has been attended with the greatest advantage to the faithful; as may be seen
in the work of Damascene on images, and in the seventh council, which is the
second of Nice.j But because the enemy of the human race, by his
wiles and deceits, seeks to pervert every the most holy institution, should the
faithful happen at all to offend in this respect, the pastor, in pursuance of
the decree of the Council of Trent, will use every exertion in his power to
correct such an abuse, and when occasion presents itself, will explain the
decree itself to the people. He will also instruct the unlearned, and those who
are ignorant of the purpose of images, that they are intended to instruct in
the history of the Old and New Testaments, and to recall to remembrance the
events which they record; that thus excited by the recollection of heavenly
things, we may be the more intensely inflamed to adore and love God himself. He
will also point out that the images of the saints are placed in the churches to
be honoured, and also that, admonished by example, we may conform ourselves to
their lives and virtues.
I am the Lord thy God,
mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto
thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. (The Catechism of
the Council of Trent [trans. Theodore Alois Buckley; London: George
Routledge and Co., 1852], 371-72)
1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law
The Abbots of Constantinople and the Veneration of Images (8th century)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images. (§ 2131)
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
The fourth rule is: When all the Doctors of the Church with common agreement teach that something comes to us from the Apostolic Tradition, whether they are assembled together in a general Council, or writing separately in their books, that must be believed to be an apostolic Tradition. There is a reason for this rule, because if all the Doctors of the Church, when they agree on some point of doctrine, could err, the whole Church would err, since she is held to follow her Doctors, and she does not follow them. An example of the first part of the rule is the veneration of images, which the Doctors of the Church assembled at the general Council of Nicaea II said is from the apostolic Tradition. An example of the second part is hardly found, if absolutely all the Fathers who wrote must say something expressly about it. However, it seems to suffice, if some famous Fathers speak about it expressly, and the others do not contradict them, when they are discussing the same matter. For then it can be said without being rash that it is the view of all; for, when one of the Fathers erred in a grave matter, many are always found who contradict him. (Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, 2016], Controversy I, Book IV, Chapter IX [pp. 247-48], emphasis added)
Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787)
Some think that we should pray to sacred images the same veneration with which we honour the original: thus, they say that to the images of God is due the worship of latria, to the image of the Blessed Virgin, the worship called hyperdulia, and to the images of the saints, that of dulia. But it is better to say with Bellarmine, that although images should be venerated differently, according to the prototype which they represent, still we should (as was observed in the seventh synod,) pay them not strictly, but in an improper sense, the veneration due to the originals; just as the ambassador of a king receives the same honour which is shown to the sovereign, but only in an improper sense. But as St. Thomas solves this difficulty better than any other author. (2.2, q. 8, a. 3, ad 3.) He says, as the advocates of the first opinion hold, that the worship of latria or dulia, shown to God or the saints, may also be paid to their images; but with this difference, that the worship of the prototypes is absolute, and the veneration of the images relative: thus every difficulty is removed. (Alphonsus M. Liguori, An Exposition and Defence of the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; Along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers and of the Objections of Fra Paolo Sarpi [Dublin: James Duffy, 1846], 423-24)
Joseph Pohle (1852-1922)
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. 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 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.”
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. The opinion of Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro is unanimously rejected by modern theologians . . . 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 Divinity itself, is entitled to a relative divine worship (cultus latriae relativus). (Joseph Pohle, Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with an Appendix on the Worship of the Saints, Relics, and Images, 176-77, 179, emphasis in bold added)
Ludwig Ott (1906-1985)
2. Veneration of the Relics of the Saints
It is permissible and profitable to venerate the
relics of the Saints. (De fide.)
The
honour shown to the relics of the saints is called “Relative Dulia.” The
Council of Trent declared: “Also the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of the
others who dwell with Christ … are to be honoured by the faithful.” D 985. Cf.
D 998, 440, 304. The reason for the veneration of relics lies in this, that the
bodies of the saints were living members of Christ and Temples of the Holy
Ghost; that they will again be awakened and glorified and that through them God
bestows many benefits on mankind (D 985). As well as the bodies and their
parts, objects which came into physical contact with the saints are also
venerated as relics.
The
declaration of the Council is directed against the Reformers, who rejected as
unbiblical both the veneration of the saints and the veneration of relics (cf.
Luther, Art. Smalcald. P. II Art. 2 n. 22). In Christian antiquity Vigilantius
inveighed against the veneration of relics which even then was greatly
developed.
Holy
Writ does not mention the veneration of relics, but it affords precedents, upon
which the Christian veneration of relics is founded. On their departure from
Egypt the Israelites took with them the bones of Joseph (Ex. 13:19). A dead
person was awakened to life by contact with the bones of Eliseus (4 Kings
13:21). Eliseus worked a miracle with the mantle of Elias (4 Kings 2:13 et
seq). The Christians of Ephesus laid the handkerchiefs and aprons of the
Apostle Paul on the sick persons and thereby achieved cure of sicknesses and
freedom from evil spirits (Acts 19:12).
The
high esteem in which martyrdom was held led very early to the veneration of the
relics of the martyrs. The Martyrium Polycarpi narrates that the Christians of
Symrna collected the bones of the martyr bishop, “more valuable than precious
stones and to be more treasured than gold,” and interred them in a suitable
place (18:2). “There,” says the author, “we shall as much as possible,
congregate in joy and jubilation, and the Lord will approve, that we celebrate
the feast day of his martyrdom” (18:3). St. Jerome examines in detail and
rejects the reproach made by Vigilantius that the veneration of relics amounted
to adoration of idols. He distinguished latria and dulia, and pointed out that
the veneration of relics is a relative veneration, i.e., refers really to the
person of the martyr (Ep. 109, 1; C. Vigil. 4 et seq.). Cf. Theodoret of Cyrus,
Graec. affect. curatio 8; St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IV 15; S. th. III
25, 6.
3. Veneration of Images
of the Saints
It is permissible and profitable to venerate images
of the Saints. (De fide.)
The
veneration shown to images of the saints is “Relative Dulia.” The Seventh
General Council at Nicaea (787), appealing to Tradition, declared against the
Iconoclasts of the Greek Church, that it is permissible to set up “the
venerable and holy images” of Christ, of the Mother of God, of the angels and
of all the saints, and to show them a reverent homage (τιμητικὴυ προσκύνησιν), but not adoration in the true and proper
sense (ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν) which is due to God alone; for the
veneration of the image refers to the prototype (Basilius, De Spiritu S. 18,
45). D 302. The Council of Trent renewed these decisions against the Reformers,
who rejected the veneration of images, as well as that of saints and relics;
and in so doing stressed again its relative character: “The honour which is
shown to the images refers to the prototypes which these represent.” D 986; cf.
998.
The
Old Testament prohibition of the making and veneration of images (Ex. 20:4 et
seq.), on which the opponents of the veneration of images rely, was intended to
prevent the Israelites from relapsing into the idolatry of their pagan milieu.
The prohibition is valid for Christianity only in so far as it prohibits the idolatrous
veneration of images. Further, even the Old Testament knew exceptions from the
prohibition of the making of images: Ex. 25:18 (two cherubims of gold on the
ark). Numbers 21:8 (the brazen serpent).
Owing
to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian
veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over
paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative
representations in the houses of God (Can. 36). The original purpose of the
images was that of instruction. The veneration of images (by kissing, bowing
down before them, burning of candles, incensing) chiefly developed in the Greek
Church from the fifth to the seventh centuries. The Iconoclasts of the eighth
and the ninth centuries saw in the veneration of images a relapse into
paganism. Against them St. John Damascene († 749), the Patriarchs Germanus (†
733) and Nicephorus († 829) of Constantinople and the Abbot Theodor of Studium
(† 826) defended the Church practice. They stressed above all the relative
character of the veneration and also pointed out the educational value of the
images. Cf. D 1569. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [St.
Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957], 319-21)
It should be obvious that Beaumont is misrepresenting the real issue that non-Catholics/non-Eastern Orthodox have with the defined dogmatic teachings relating to the veneration of images (not the mere use of images and other physical objects for didactic purposes). Sadly for Beaumont and other defenders of the veneration of icons/images (see Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons), this is one of many defined teachings that is without a shred of meaningful support from the Bible and anything that can be said to be early Christian tradition. For example, see Eric D. Svendsen, In the Image of God: A Dialogue With a Roman Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images (a thorough response to Robert Sungenis on the overwhelming early Christian evidence against the later defined RC/EO dogma).