Images and worship?

[asteroid]

Firstly I’ve got to say this - I’m a protestant who is currently looking more and more toward catholicism, seems to be called this direction, and is starting RCIA. Got to say that or by the end of this you’ll all think I’m some form of mad anti-catholic here to rip apart people’s faith. Which I’m not.

In the protestant churches I’ve been to I’ve always been taught negative things about the Catholic Church (usually what I’ve taught has been wrong). One thing I’ve been taught is that Catholics worship images. Catholics tell me this is false, and who am I to argue with them?

But on Sunday I bought a little book before Mass - “Divine Mercy & Sister Faustina”. The chaplet looks good - especially for someone who hasn’t got his head round Mariology etc. The book is published by the Catholic Truth Society. But it contains statements that are worrying me and confusing me somewhat.

P44 - “In the vision of October 24th 1936, Jesus showed a new role of the image of the Divine Mercy. According to previous visions the image was THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP and a means of obtaining graces; in the light of this vision it is a sign reminding us to perform works of mercy.”

P45 - “Worshipping the image without performing works of mercy at the same time, would have more in common with idolatry than genuine Christianity.”

P46 - “Jesus wanted the image to be venerated in public. The visions do not specify the forms of worship so this wish may be understood in different ways.”

P53 - “Jesus attached some promises to the worship of the image.”

Now, what am I to make of these statements. Are they false? If that’s the case, then the problem is solved - Catholics don’t worship images. But the books published by CTS would then be rather unreliable.

Are they true? Is the image to be worshipped?

While I agree that any form of devotion without living the life would be hypocrisy (and a hypocrisy that I’ve been known to follow), living a life of mercy does not make worshipping an image right.

Worship is reserved for God alone (see the 10 commandments) not for images, even images that represent God. Using an image to help us in our worship is fair enough - but not worshipping the image.

The statements above clearly make the image (rather than the One pictured in the image) the object of worship. They say that without performing works of mercy this would be idolatry. Surely it is idolatry anyway, even if your works of mercy are great.

Please help me - is it wrong to worship an image? is it right? Do these statements of an image being the object of worship mean something other than the image being the object of worship?

Please note - I’m not posting anything from the protestant sources that I would have quoted not so long ago, I’m only quoting a Catholic book bought in a Catholic Church and published by the Catholic Truth Society. If I’d found this in an anti-catholic book it would be easy to dismiss it. But it’s in a very pro-catholic book.

Please help me out on this - show me that what I’ve been taught about Catholic practise is indeed wrong and that images are not to be worshipped, or the object of worship. (Does “object of worship” mean something other than what it sounds like?)

Don’t get me wrong - I like the image. I like what the rays represent. I like the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I like the novena (apart from a few points where my non-catholic beliefs are still alive and well!). I just don’t want to worship the image.

Blessings & sorry this has been so lengthy.

Asteroid, living in the land of confusion.

 

[Marie]

The problem you are encountering with this is pretty common. It lies mostly in the fact that Catholic Speak vs Protestant speak can be very different in meaning.

No we do not worship images. Yes we do venerate them.

For Catholics, whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for
the divine nature . . . he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands. In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God. This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of an icon, where God is worshiped with the help of a visual aid.

 

[carol_marie]

Read again his P44 & P53… it doesn’t say to venerate the object, it clearly says to worship it. Why is that language used? If venerate is what you should be doing, why isn’t that word used instead?

 

[Catholicforlife]

clearly a poor choice in wording. I would write the publisher for clarification. ANy good Catholic will tell you images are an aid, not the object of worship. My mother is deceased and often when I think of her, I look at her picture. IT makes me feel closer to her. When I am praying or in despair, sometimes I look at a picture of Jesus. IT reminds me of how he took on human form to save me. I do not (nor does any one I know) worship His image
I totally understand why this would confuse you and I would certainly write the publisher! Good luck to you on your journey

D

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps this will help. These quotes are taken from Sister Faustina’s diary.

<<<<

"Paint the image according to the pattern you see, with the signature: Jesus, I trust in You. I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and throughout the world." (Diary, 47)

"I promise that the soul that shall venerate this image will not perish." (Diary, 48)

"My image already is in your soul. I desire that there be a Feast of Mercy. I want this image, which you will paint with a brush, to be solemnly blessed on the first Sunday after Easter; that Sunday is to be the Feast of Mercy." (Diary, 49)

"I am offering people a vessel with which they are to keep coming for graces to the fountain of mercy. That vessel is this image with the signature: 'Jesus, I trust in You'" (Diary, 327)

"I desire that the image be publicly honored." (Diary, 414)

"By means of this image, I shall be granting many graces to souls; so let every soul have access to it." (Diary, 570)

Source: Diary, Divine Mercy in My Soul, by Blessed Sister M. Faustina Kowalska, published by Marians of the Immaculate Conception, Stockbridge, Massachusetts, 01263, 1998, ISBN 0-944203-04-3.>>>

As you can plainly see, the language Sister herself used is that of VENERATION.

The Catholic Truth Society, from what I googled, is located in the United Kingdom. Their paraphrase or understanding of Sister Faustina’s words might be less than perfect or confusing; that’s why I believe it is always vital to go with PRIMARY SOURCES–in THIS case, Sister Faustina’s diary, which makes it EXPLICITLY CLEAR that the image was to be VENERATED.

Worship in the old, “British”, sense, may have, like the Greek, had a hierarchy wherein there was a “worship” like dulia–a desire to praise and emulate good, a “worship” like hyperdulia–the praise and emulation of the Virgin, and finally “worship” in the sense of LATRIA–that owed to GOD ALONE.

In order to make it absolutely clear to those of our separated brethren who are not familiar with or have other difficulties with the millenial-old GRADATION of worship (as seen indeed in the Jewish scriptures also), many, but not all, Catholic publications use “veneration” for the old “dulia and hyperdulia”, which the Chaplet would fall under, and “worship” for God alone. However, older publications and European publications may still use the word “worship” in the older sense of dulia and hyperdulia, which might confuse some. Please be patient–WE are trying to accommodate YOU, after all.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

In old English worship does not always mean honor due to God. It can mean a very strong veneration or even civil honor.

 

[mercygate]

Richard Lamb:

In old English worship does not always mean honor due to God. It can mean a very strong veneration or even civil honor.

Indeed. Worship is a good Anglo-Saxon word which covers a lot of bases. It doesn’t allow for the refinement of thought one finds in Greek. The word, “worship” has been used, up until the recent past, to express what we would more likely refer to today as “veneration,” or “honor.”

See this link – the answers to many questions you may have might be found on the home page “library” of the Catholic Answers web site: catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp

Also check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2131, 2132. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Good luck.

 

[Paul_W]

It’s not just a matter of Catholicspeak vs Protestantspeak, I think it’s a problem with the English language having one word that means different things.

The word “image” can mean the illustrated paper, or the illustration itself.

You are not worshiping the piece of paper, that happens to have an illustration on it, you are worshiping Jesus, as he appears in this particular vision. The way He looks in the painting. In worshiping Him, while viewing this illustration, we are better able to fully understand the power of his Divine Mercy.

 

[rarndt01]

Let’s look at this whole matter senseibly. I don’t believe there is any modern day Catholic who looks upon an image of Mary, Jesus or any patron saint as alive or that it will speak to them.Images in our churches are representations to VISUALLY draw us closer to the reality of that person who resides IN heaven. We do not pray TO the image, but to the real person it represents in heaven. That is the difference.

                              In most Protestant churches, there is the image of an empty cross. Sometimes these crosses are quite large mounted on the wall. When Christians look at the cross, what do they think both mentally and visually? They imediately contemplate Jesus' death and resurrection. It is simply a visual aid or reminder.

                               Many Protestants today are totally unaware of just why images and paintings were prominantly displayed in churches for the last 1500 years. It was because during the early and middle ages of the church, the lay people had NO PRINTED bibles to read, as we do today and so images and artwork became a MEANS of visually understanding great religous figures and there importance in Christianity.

                                Even today as I am seated in my pew at my parish I view the carved images upon the walls. They are on both sides. These are what is called "the stations of the cross" As I look upon each one, it visually helps me to reflect on the life of our dear Lord and what he had to undergo for us. Certainly, I am not worshiping each carved representation, but visually contemplating their spiritual meaning.

                                  There is also a rite at Easter which we call the "veneration of the cross" . Usaually on Good Friday. During the service we members line up in two columns and either genuflect before the cross or KISS it. I kiss the cross. Now I surely am not worshiping a wooden cross, but I am acknowleging with my entire being the love I have for my Savior FOR WHAT HE DID ON THAT CROSS. I am eternally grateful and so OUTWARDLY I show my public respect and love to him by kissing the cross. Do you understand this? I am very moved in my soul during this sacred time.

                                    What is really interesting is just a few years ago I was a die hard Baptist who once thought as you did and then some! I went so far as to think all Catholics were bound for hell. But a study of the early church fathers quickly changed my mind.Thank God. Today I LOVE my faith and there is SO MUCH to learn. All I ask is that you study it and not prejudge it. You will be blessed in the long run.God Bless.

                                                   Ron from Ohio

 

[Fidelis]

The word “worship” in this case seems to be used in the archaic sense of “honor” or “esteem.” It was quite acceptable in years past, especially in British usage. For example, Luke 14:10 is rendered this way in the RSV:

*"But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher’; then you will be honored * in the presence of all who sit at table with you."

In the KJV, however, you find:

"Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."

The reader of the KJV will (hopefully) not take this as thinking he will be worshiped (in the honor given only to deity sense), but recognizes it as an achaicism. Same with some Catholic devotionals.

 

[asteroid]

Many thanks for all the quick replies - they’ve been very helpful in doing what is suggested and writing to the publisher. (btw most of the stuff I’ve read from CTS has been excellent. And it’s all half price at the moment in the church so I’ve started working through it all. Also on Sunday I bought one on Via Lucis which I’d never heard of. Looks great).

Clearly, from what I’ve been told, from the catholic.com article posted etc, there is no “worship” of images. The choice of wording in the book is very unfortunate. Perhaps the author was using the word in its archaic sense as per KJV. Since the book was published in 2000 the author should have known better! I’ve written and asked for clarification. As it stands, any catholicism hater could take the quotations and say, “Ah, but you do worship images. It says so right here in this CTS (publishers to the Holy See) book.”

I’ve never asked anyone why images in Catholic churches are wrong but images in protestant churches and books are ok. Or why a large cross in a church doesn’t come under what is forbidden in Exodus 20:4 (making “a likeness of any thing…” is forbidden if taken literally and out of context) if a statue of a saint does come under what is forbidden. I expect the answer might be “because the statue is Catholic”.

The verse in Luke from the KJV is interesting - there are people who believe that the KJV (1611 version) is the only trustworthy English Bible, that God gave it and it’s perfect. They have some odd websites. Wonder what they make of this verse. There are others who take everything as literally as possible. The Dake Bible is one of those but even he has a footnote toning down the meaning. Actually Dake is confusing me at present - he takes everything literally wherever possible (resulting in some very strange ideas). But certain verses about ‘this is my body’ or from John 6 are taken symbolically. Strange that he thinks it’s impossible to be literal about them when so many millions take a more literal line.

Ty to Ron from Ohio - I too used to think Catholics were hell bound. Some in the church I was (and still semi-am) attending would believe that too. The Aberystwyth (west Wales) catholics softened me years ago. I’ve also been a baptist lay preacher & deacon and got into trouble once for reading from The Imitation of Christ in a communion service because it was a ‘catholic’ book. I’m currently avoiding reading anything about baptism because it disagrees with me and I’m not ready for that one yet.

Oops - gone on for too long again. Typing is too quick. Too many words come out.

Blessings

Asteroid

 

[JimG]

The word “worship” was frequently used in older English language devotional literature as a term for strong veneration.

I was once nearly scandalized to come across an old booklet titled “The Worship of Mary.” I thought, boy, this guy has really got it wrong. But in reading the introduction, he actually defended his use of the term “worship,” saying that he intended to convey a high degree of veneration. He also wrote that in some cases the alleged “worship” we give to God is so weak that it really amounts to little more than high admiration, and that the degree of worship that is really owed to God is infinitely more than ever would be conveyed in his book about Mary.

 

[mercygate]

JimG:

The word “worship” was frequently used in older English language devotional literature as a term for strong veneration.

I was once nearly scandalized to come across an old booklet titled “The Worship of Mary.” I thought, boy, this guy has really got it wrong. But in reading the introduction, he actually defended his use of the term “worship,” saying that he intended to convey a high degree of veneration. He also wrote that in some cases the alleged “worship” we give to God is so weak that it really amounts to little more than high admiration, and that the degree of worship that is really owed to God is infinitely more than ever would be conveyed in his book about Mary.

I understand that The Worship of Mary is one of the best books ever written on Marian devotion. And I’m jealous: why didn’t I think of it first – that is, the insight that the “worship” we give God is so weak that it amount amounts to little more than high admiration?

 

[rarndt01]

astoroid

          Thank you for your kind words. I noticed you are still water shy about baptism. But why? Truth is ALWAYS truth no matter who denies it. The sacrament of baptism is extremely important. Not only for you but all who wish to be born again,  whether and infant or an adult. What is noteworthy, is that NONE of the early fathers succeeding the apostles,  thought baptism was merely an ordinance that FOLLOWS salvation, but rather that through baptism forgiveness of sins is given. I just ask that you consider their testimony and note how they quote our Lord himself for their authority. Their overwhelming witness is what changed my prejudical attitude. See below;

Justin Martyr

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (*First Apology *61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian

“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (*Baptism *12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (*Discourse on the Holy Theophany *8 [A.D. 217]).

The Recognitions of Clement

“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (*The Recognitions of Clement *6:9 [A.D. 221]).

 

[mayra_hart]

catholics use statues and other images to call to mind the holy people they represent:jesus, the angels, and the saints. protestants use the christmas nativity scenes to despict the same holy people:jesus, the angels, and the saints. catholics simply use the statues and images in devotions all year around. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros