The Power of Words:

Matt 26:42-44 Again he went away for the second time and prayed, ‘My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.’ 43Again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.

There are two indisputable: We must pray unceasingly, and we pray with words. All major world religions recognize the effectiveness of meditation. The Hindus have Yoga. Buddhists seem to have little other than meditation. The Salat or Namaz of Muslims, recited 5 times a day consists of reciting the praise of Allah 5 times a day, and expressing the desire to submit to his will. Catholics have the Rosary, the Divine Office, the Lord’s Prayer, various litanies and chaplets, and possibly a couple of dozen other prayers that have passed into widespread use. Each prayer is a hark towards perfection that is written as a formula. Perfect thanks, perfect praise, perfect contrition, perfect humility and perfect charity. And each time a Catholic says the prayer, he is striving to that perfection, though of course, never perfectly.

The Science of Imagery:

Humans think chiefly in images, and the adage “an image is worth a thousand words” is not without merit. When we read a novel, we instinctively form mental pictures of the events depicted, and carry these pictures in our memory. My ‘repetitive formulaic prayers’ are filled with pictures, and are really more appropriately termed “repetitive imagery”. The Rosary brings me pictures of the whole Gospel.  What about professional information? When I think of diseases, I pictures the various blights that it might cause. I find that the associated word-information is of the most evanescent type. Stephen Hawking possible the most brilliant mind of our generation, who could not use pen and paper, formulated the most brilliant theories by moving around complex three dimensional images in his brain. Albert Einstein, was rightly called the ‘king of the thought experiment’, visualizing experiments in his mind.

Man is compelled to make images. “Art is the signature of man”, as GK Chesterton in The Everlasting Man, in which he goes on to talk of how the earliest sign, one might say, of the separation of the human intellect from the rest of the animal kingdom in history, is the development of art, and the emergence of it in cave-man drawings. It is not wife-beating, nor tool-making, nor clan warfare, nor home-building, for all of these are seen also in beasts. Man is compelled to make images of Creation, and any restriction of such an activity as is seen in Islam (the reason you do not find pictures in mosques), for example, curbs a drive that is possibly older than, or possibly even exalted to the status of being simultaneous with, the advent of religion.

What gives man this drive, that animals are not subject to? I can think of no better reply to this mystery than to say that humans are “visually contemplative”. The whole activity of our brains consists of gathering memories and reinforcing them ie converting short term to long term memories. In many ways, it is our long-term memories that make us what we are. The types of memory correspond to the 5 senses, so there is visual (sight), auditory (hearing), olfactory (smell), gustatory (taste), and tactile (touch) memories. Our brain stores the memories of sensory information it receives from the body. The latter three, may be said to be concerned with ‘lower’ forms of learning, and primitive instincts. Auditory and visual stimulii involve higher learning. The eye “sees” images of two things: images and words. The ear hears two things: sounds and words. The Mass is really represents the maximum amount of imagery that one can cram into one room, but so also is the attempt with any Pentecostal service that uses smoke, lights and lasers and large screens.

Oliver Sacks in his “The man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat” recounts the story of a man who due to a clot in the brain, lost along with his sight, not only his visual memories, but also his memory of vision. He had become a completely non-visual being, and was completely unaware of the loss or what the word ‘vision’ meant. I do not believe this is what we are called to achieve as Christians. Needless to say, the man was a wreck, and the logical extension of the Protestant argument against images leads to the selfsame destination.

I was praying my Rosary one day, while kneeling on the floor, when I became aware of my child’s colorful plastic magnetic alphabets scattered on the floor in my field of vision. I had to sweep them away before I could continue praying, focusing again on the altar before me on the wall. The human mind, when awake, will incessantly project images, no matter whether the eyes are open or closed. The awake state is a state of constant visual imagery. When our mind is not seeing things, it is imagining things, as in a ‘reverie’ that it shakes itself out of to start seeing again. As a result of this predisposition for constant image generation, when the eyes are focused on a blank surface, as when one prays before a blank wall, then the mid merely uses said wall as though it were movie screen. The person praying would then, of course attempt to consciously project holy images that his mind might be able to pull out of it’s memory. The constancy of such focused image generation would depend on many things, among which: the mental state of the person, what else he may have on his mind at the time, the spiritual state of the person, and not the least, his state of tiredness- state that precedes sleep, when control over subconscious image production is particularly poor. Thus the supplicant’s ‘mind’s eye’ will, for the duration of the prayer effort, be filled with a mix of sacred and other images in proportion to the play of the various factors described. The best holy image that he comes up with, will be dependent upon the best ‘artistic impression’ that his own mind can conjure. This might be a self-generated image, but more commonly an image he may remember seeing by an artist, either a classical master, or even the artists of a children’s Bible. In the case of Catholics, this image will usually be one of the classical masters, who were largely Catholic, or the image upon his altar on the wall, which may yet be one by a classical master, yet usually one at least by a person who makes a living by his art. Just the same way as he gets his guidance from a person who’s life is given to being a shepherd, the Pope and the priests. In the end, it all comes down to image quality.

Christian Imagery:

Human Beings think in images and words. Images conjure words, words conjure images. If prayer is an effort to move to a higher state of mind, then that state involves images and words. A person who is moved towards greater deeds of charity is predisposed to do so because his mind is better imbued with the images and words that kindle the desire. Not without wisdom is it said “The eyes see what the mind knows”, but one might also similarly say “The heart desires what the mind sees”. Classically, the mind, of course, has three faculties: the memory, the intellect and the will, and the latter two draw upon the former. In the Dialogue, St Catherine of Siena writes that the Lord has filled the memory with his love, for the will and the intellect to draw upon. The thing that ultimately fires us on to great deeds is the will, and the one thing that will draw us most strongly to God, and fill us with grace, is holy desire. In prayer and with all of our words and images, we aspire to kindle our desire, and then to fan it, aided by grace, it into a blazing fire that desires nothing but the Lord, and this is the point of all our prayers.

There is no Christian who, when he prays or meditates on the Bible, does not conjure up in his mind, the image of a Bearded Man. Catholics crystallize this image into a statue. There is no Christian praying or meditating on the Bible, whose mental images of Christ are not accompanied by scenes from his earthly life and are surrounded by his earthly companions. Catholics crystallize as idols these images too, as statues of Mother Mary and the Saints. Indeed there is no Christian who does not pray before an image, conjured up by the human mind, or by human hands. There are indeed human beings whose prayers are devoid of images. These are called Buddhists, and the name of the famous technique employed for the purpose is Transcendental Meditation. IN SUMMARY, there is no Christian who does not, in a physical sense, bow his head before an image.

The most truthful memories evoke human image of a loving God, Jesus. Every Christian contemplation of God, is in the form of his human image, Jesus. Every Christian himself is an image, that of God. “The Son is the image of the invisible God” Col 1:15, 2 Cor 4:4 “the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God”. Thus God’s greatest gift to us, can be called an “Image”.

De-Christianization and Iconoclasm:

The effort to build statues of our Lord and his saints, rather than of historically prominent figures and other ancestors represents a movement towards God. The presence of religious figures and symbols in civil architecture moves the souls of young and old away from secular pursuits which would be otherwise represented in its art and culture. Walk around your city, you as a Christian are aware of the presence of Christ, but how are we bringing this awareness to the heathen? What merit is there in displaying for him secular images and the family photo album? As I walk down Corporation Street in Birmingham UK, I see that the magnificent red-brick Law Courts bear high above, an imposing statue of the Queen understandably surrounded by chicken-wire. What purpose does this serve than to instill in people a justifiable fear of the law? Have we not seen the images of the Kims, which are the only public images available in North Korea, and what purpose they serve? And may we not instill in the populace the fear of the Lord, nor his Love?

Would not more conversations involve Christ if you wore Him crucified upon your chest? Do we not display the ‘graven image’ of Crosses upon our Churches? Yet are not the Church buildings ‘graven images’ of Christianity? Otherwise they should be built no different from ordinary buildings. What is it about the shape of a Church that helps us to worship? But even if all the images and buildings were to be taken away from the Church, we would yet be left with one Image, one everlasting vicarious caricature, that man in the pointy white hat for all the world to see for loving or deriding, the Supreme Pontiff.

There are Images that Protestant do use:

The best context to discuss this is in the context of a debate I was having on Facebook with a non-Catholic on the issue. Now as you may know when you chat on FB one can see the other person’s photograph next to what they are writing to you. So this person sends me a picture of Catholics bowing to a statue of Mother Mary as ‘proof’ that we ‘worship Mary’.  A favourite Protestant church-breaking ploy. I said to her that I was looking at her photograph at the very moment, as she was mine. First of all why did she think it OK to take a photograph of herself if in the Bible all images are forbidden? Now since we were effectively conversing with the image, did it mean that we were worshipping each other? If not, then Protestants should have on problem with us looking directly at a statue of Mother Mary’s eyes and talking to her. THE ISSUE OF IMAGES IS A NON-ISSUE REALLY. IF IT WAS THEN NOT A SINGLE PROTESTANT WOULD ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BUY A CAMERA! Biblically this is no different from building a statue, since both are images. IT should make no difference that statues have three dimensions, dimensionality should not be an excuse to break the law, if this was indeed a law. In a few years from now, we will probably have 3-D Star-Wars-like images, would those be acceptable to them?

To cut a long argument short, it would then also be wrong to hang a photograph of a loved one in your room. But you will see Protestant houses littered with holiday and graduation photos. They will say “Yes but we don’t worship them”. But neither so we worship images. They are in both cases, aide-memoires. Well, they might say “But we don’t kiss the feet of the idol.” If indeed this were a sin, then every man who kissed the picture of his child that he kept in his wallet, every soldier who kissed a picture of his family that he kept in his vest should be in danger of Hellfire.

Old Testament Statues:

The key question to ask is this: Does God, anywhere in the Bible condemn a sacred image dedicated to him? There are examples of such images pleasing to God throughout the OT. 1 Kings7:25-28, 32-27, The Cherubim on the Ark Exodus 25:18-21, Ezekiel describing the Inner Temple 41:18 “ Every cherub had two faces.. a man’s face… a young lion’s face…they were carved on the house all around…” the temple of Solomon Kings 6:23 The two great Cerubs, and Cherubs all around, and the walls, the doors…! There were even lion and oxen carved in the gold! A Golden Calf?!

Bowing before a Human Being:

But what if we bowed down as we were speaking to our Facebook friends? In fact what if we ‘threw ourselves face first on the floor in prostration?’. My friends, that’s still not worship. Here’s why there’s nothing blasphemous about bowing down out of respect to a human being.

The prostrations in seem to be spontaneous expressions of awe and humility in the sudden presence of power.  By falling on one’s face, a person abandons pride, ego, and self-consciousness.  After all, one’s most basic external identity is one’s face.

Numbers 14:5 “Then Moses and Aaron FELL ON THEIR FACES before all the assembly of the congregation of the Israelites.”

Numbers 16:3-7 “They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, ‘You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?’ When Moses heard it, HE FELL ON HIS FACE. Then he said to Korah and all his company, ‘In the morning the Lord will make known who is his, and who is holy, and who will be allowed to approach him“

Exodus 18:7 “Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and he bowed down and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent.“

This is probably the first such instance:

“Then Joseph removed them from his father’s knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth.” (Genesis 48:12)

1 Samuel 24:8 “Now afterward David arose and went out of the cave and called after Saul, saying, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the ground and prostrated himself.

1 Samuel 20:40-42 Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said to him, ‘Go and carry them to the city.’ As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap- and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace..

Ruth 2:10 “Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your sight that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?”

2 Kings 2:15 The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, “The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him.”

…And lastly…do Catholics worship idols?

And the last frontier…are Catholics, the ones who for two millenia continue to be the bastion and the face of Christianity from and to the world…IDOL WORSHIPPERS??!!!!?!?!? I once said that every kind of heresy can be cast out, but as for this one, it can only be removed by prayer. For to say that Catholics worship an idol of Jesus, for example, is to believe that what they are worshipping is not the Person who the idol represents, but the bag of cement that was used in the manufacturing of the idol. The view is, just as in Islam, based on a faulty interpretation of the Old Testament passage for it is abundantly clear that even the Israelites did not interpret that selfsame passage in this erroneous fashion, examples of which are in the preceding discussion. The passage in question “Thou shalt not make a graven image…” is a specific edict against idol-worship. The question to be answered then, by those who hold such a view as the above is: Do you think that the commandment is a prohibition of idols, or is it a prohibition of their worship? If it’s the latter then one is merely left with the task of proving, from the Catholic Church doctrine, that idol-worship is advised, which of course it isn’t. If it is the former, then one has also to justify the use of other imaging techniques like taking photographs, use of the phone-camera, Skype, Facetime, Facebook etc. Because what is being addressed, albeit in real time, is the image of a person. When a Catholic prays before an idol, he is also similarly addressing God or a specific saint in real-time. Similarly one must also justify the use of the family album to preserve memories of the family as well as keeping a picture of a loved one in one’s wallet, for example by soldiers who go to war, and then kissing it from time to time, which is not even a real-time representation. All these the can be seen, by the same argument as a perversion of the commandment. After a prolonged debate with a Protestant he finally crystallized his argument as:

“When you bow To Image do you Think you are worshipping God, Kissing The Image as if it’s Real Jesus? If isn’t idolatry what it is? TO which my reply “Can you please provide the reference for the Church doctrine that says “you should kiss the image as if it is the real Jesus?” Or in other words, do you think it not possible to kiss an image without thinking it is the real God? Is it compulsory that when I kiss an image of God, I am asknowledging the image to be God himself? I don’t understand again…Can I not do it out of respect? Also we only kiss statues out of love. This is not anywhere compulsory practise in Catholic doctrine, nor will you fo to Hell if yoy dont do it. Similarly, just because you dont kiss your (I don;t mean yours) dead mother’s photo, does not mean that you do not love her.What happens when we kiss a picture of our mother. When you do it do you think that picture has become your mother?”

I kiss an image of Jesus becasue I love the Person that the image represents. I can’t kiss Jesus personally, so I kiss His image for now. Why does a soldier kiss the photograph of his family which he carries in his wallet?

St Aquinas on the Veneration of Saints’ Relics:

(Q25 of Summa Tertia pars)

Article 6. Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?

saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

Objection 3. Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. Therefore, after a saint’s death, it seems that his body should not be worshiped.

On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): “We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity”: and further on: “If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius.”

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): “If a father’s coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one’s parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man’s very nature.” It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply to Objection 1. This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: “We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen.” To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): “We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels”—that is to say, with the worship of “latria.” “But we honor the martyrs’ relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [The original meaning of the word ‘martyr,’ i.e. the Greek martys is ‘a witness’] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master.” Consequently, by honoring the martyrs’ relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of “latria” to dead men.

Reply to Objection 2. We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys God; and for God’s sake, whose ministers the saints were. Reply to Objection 3. The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

Catacomb Art