By Fr Joseph B Francis –
Why statues and pictures in the Catholic churches?
A question other Christians often ask the Catholics is: Why are you keeping statues and pictures in your churches and homes? Is it not against the explicit prohibition of the Bible and would proceed to show you Exodus chapter 20.3-6. With this they will accuse the Catholics of being idolaters. We should learn first of all distinguish between idols and images. The distinction consists in how we look at this created object. If we were to think that the “god” or the saint that this picture or statue represents resides in it and accordingly we worship, it would definitely be idolatry because we have attributed divinity to a creaturely object such as stone, metal, plaster of Paris, canvass and paint.
If on the contrary, we were to consider this statue or picture fashioned by human labour from matter as only being a sign or a symbol, representing the reality which is beyond then it is only a help to prayer and above all we do not worship but reverence the representation and this reverence goes to the original which it represents. It is somewhat like the sign post pointing to Mysore does not mean that Mysore is here but only pointing to the general direction in which Mysore lies. The picture of my late grandfather that hangs in my home is only to tell everyone who looks at it how my grandfather may have looked like; certainly it does not mean that my grandfather is hiding inside that picture!
An icon (sacred painting of the Lord, BVM or saints and angels among the Eastern rites) is always said to be a window of reality. The beautiful grills of a window are only an invitation for the air and light that come streaming through them and an invitation to look at the scene behind; but if one were lost in admiring the window grills then the purpose is lost.
A genuine icon they say invites us to go beyond what we see but if we stop at the icon then it defeats the purpose of the icon which is to draw the beholder to contemplation and prayer. Each shape, relative size of the images, the shape or largeness or smallness of eyes, the colour of clothing and the surrounding imagery all are invitations to go beyond. They say that you never look at a genuine icon in the same way always; each time you look at it you may discover something new; a detail which escaped us at one time now presents itself afresh to us and opens up another vista of reflection. It is only my ignorance that can change an icon into an idol.
On the contrary an idolater washes his idol god and uses it as holy water or daily he puts his idol to sleep and wakes it up in the morning. These actions would be idolatry. But today many would dismiss these actions also as only symbolic and not real; this however may be due to the influence of Christianity which speaks of representation.
In the Bible the prohibition of using image is only relative and not absolute
Even these arguments may not convince the opponent who would still insist that it is also forbidden explicitly by the Bible. Learn how to show from the Bible itself how the prohibition of making images is not absolute (i.e., never, at no cost) but relative (sometimes and in certain situations yes). The person who would have pointed out to Exodus chapter 20.3-6 in his favour try to answer him from the same book; now ask him to move just 5 chapters to 25.17-22. There we read that God himself is asking Moses to make an ark (box) and make a seat of mercy on top and what should surprise: to make image of two angels (cherubs) in a posture of adoration towards the mercy seat.
Another good text is found in Numbers 21. 8-9. Here God tells Moses to make a bronze image of a serpent and put it on a pole so that all those who were bitten by the poisonous snakes may look at it and be cured. Again, how could God who forbade the making of images, himself command the making of an image? So the prohibition is only relative and very specially it refers to not making an image to represent God who is spirit, as did the Hebrew people during the exodus journey after making a covenant with God and agreeing that they would worship him alone they made an image of golden calf and worshipped it in the place of God. Other texts where we see material being used to symbolize the sacred: I Sam 21. 3-4; Gen 28.16-19; 31.45-48; Ex 24. 4; Jos 4.20; 24. 26-28.
“Argumentum ad hominem” A final argument is argumentum ad hominem (direct confrontation as Scholastic theology used to call such arguments). We could give it as a supposition: if I were to keep the copy of the Bible on the ground and ask you to stamp on it with your foot you would certainly refuse. I ask: why are giving so much respect to paper and ink because that is what I find on every page materially. But you would perhaps say that it is word of God; but I would reply: it is word of God only when you read and pronounce, otherwise it is only paper and ink and yet we give respect to it because it symbolizes God’s word, it points out and represents. Similarly we respect pictures and statues because they point to the persons whom we wish to respect and honour.
Matter is not evil and could be a means for God to act
We should not forget that matter is not evil and it could be the means through which God touches our lives. We ourselves are not only spirits but also have material bodies by which we are united to the whole material universe. Incarnation itself shows us that if God the Son became human like anyone of us with a human body, matter is not evil and could be the vehicle of God’s Grace.
This is what happens in every sacrament which has an outward sign, tangible or audible or sensible through which and the accompanying words a Sacrament is celebrated and brings God’s Grace for us. So statues and pictures and “sacramentals” (like sacraments visible, tangible or audible or sensible) are used in the Catholic Churc e.g., the use of holy water, ashes on ash Wednesday, palms on palm Sunday, blessing of candles on 2nd of February, making a sign of the cross etc.
The controversy settled
Up to the 8th century there was no problem with regard to the use of statues and pictures in the Church but the problem came up in the Byzantine Empire in the East. Islam had spread fast and in the Byzantine Empire there were Jews as well as Muslim besides the Christians now and the Empire was beset with external dangers and the Emperor wanted to have a united Empire against external enemies; added to this, the monks were having much influence among the people and it was the monks who produced icons.
So the Emperor resolved to please the Muslims and Jews and also at the same time curb the influence of monks in politics. So he ordered the removal of pictures and statues from the Churches and all public places saying that they are not necessary and he wished to have harmony in his kingdom. There was much destruction of precious sacred art. There was protest from the orthodox Christians and in an ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea II in 787AD it was solemnly declared that we could use pictures and statues but the controversy did not die down easily. In another Council of Constantinople IV in 869-870 AD the doctrine was reiterated and the comparison between the reverence shown to the book of the holy Gospels and images was given. WE do not adore them but only venerate. After these councils, in the Eastern Churches only pictures (icons) were used whereas the Western Church preserved the custom of using both pictures and statues.