I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture. > 4 “**You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them;** for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law). Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law? I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve... Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question: 1. Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a "living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular commandment. 2. When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words "veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit prohibition in the 10 commandments. 3. Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from constructing and venerating images. 4. "Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady. The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?

### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says: > Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added] Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *). In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared: > We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. and in another place: > Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise. ### My question **Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively? If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.

I was just reading about Clement of Alexandria on Wikipedia , which says that in 1586 he was removed from Roman Martyrology by Pope Sixtus V. I have never heard of another instance of a figure being removed from veneration. Is this an occurrence that has happened more times? If so, what is the process by which the martyrology can be amended by removing veneration from a figure?

This post is a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103903/on-the-papal-bull-sanctissimus-dominus-noster-of-urban-viii On pg. 4 of St. Alphonsus Liguori's [*Glories of Mary*](https://ia801301.us.archive.org/25/items/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft.pdf) , we find, for example, the following "Protest of the Author"--- And, according to the Wikipedia biography of Pope Urban VIII found [*here*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII) , we read under "Policy on Private Revelation": In light of Geremia's answer in the aforementioned post, it seems that Wikipedia *may* have been wrong in their citation of the ``papal bull Sanctissimus Dominus Noster of 13 March 1625.'' It has been my observation that a "Protost" such as the one above by St. Alphonsus Liguori is not uncommon---with all professing their obedience to the decrees of Pope Urban VIII regarding the veneration (or representation in the manner of Saints) of individuals whose sanctity has not been officially recognized by the Catholic Church. QUESTION: Can anyone shed some light (with references and/or verifiable examples) of what exactly these "Decrees of Urban VIII" are? Is there a papal bull in which they are contained or where they promulgated in some other fashion? Thank you.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION > 103: For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she **venerates the Lord's Body**. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

So says Matt. 19:24--- > It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. QUESTION: I would like to know who (if any) among the **non-royal laity** have been canonized by the Catholic Church who died a natural death (i.e., not martyred) as a lay person in an economic state that might be considered well-to-do or better? (I am interested in canonized Saints who fit this criteria; nevertheless, if anyone is aware of a well-to-do individual whose cause for Sainthood has been opened, I would like to know of that individual(s) as well.) *Remark:* I have not been able to think of one such individual. I know that the Ven. Leo Dupont was born wealthy and did many wonderful things with his money, much of which he spent on charitable and pious endeavors. I don't believe that he died poor. However, he still has not been declared a Saint in the Catholic Church.

There does not appear to be any evidence for Marian veneration during the first and second century. As far as I am aware, the *Didache* (also known as *The Teachings of the Apostles*) and the *Epistle of Barnabas*, both of which tend to be considered first-century, do not mention Mary at all. The phrase "*theotokos*" (God-bearer or the mother of God) seems to be attributed to Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus during the fourth century. My understanding is that during the fifth century, the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) endorsed the title “*theotokos*.” After this event influential theologians like Augustine of Hippo started focusing even more time and attention on doctrines elevating the position of Mary. Please note that this question is not about whether the veneration of Mary is right or wrong. I simply need to establish the time line of events within the Church that led to the acceptance of the title "*theotokos*" at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and how the veneration of Mary developed thereafter. EDIT: I found this article on the subject: https://classictheology.org/2021/11/29/the-history-of-mary-veneration-a-protestant-prospective/

Does the Catholic Church officially consider the end of the Patristic era to have occurred with the death of St. John Damascene in the eighth century? I have read that some consider St. Bernard of Clairvaux who died in the twelfth century to have been a Church Father. If so, are there any Church Fathers of the Catholic Church between St. John Damascene and St. Bernard, or is indeed, St. John Damascene the last one? Thank you.

It seems that [various famous reformers venerated Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary) but in my experience there is a general disregard of Mary in modern Protestant denominations. When did this sentiment historically wane? I'm excluding the Lutheran church, which still uses the title "Mother of God" here.

Did anyone keep the sandals of Jesus that He had worn during His Mission on earth, after His crucifixion ? Is there any Christian group, in any part of the world, that venerates the sandals of Jesus, on the lines of veneration that is given to the Milk Grotto of Bethlehem ?

Is there any archeological or written evidence for image veneration in the first few centuries especially in the ante Nicene period outside the Rome? *Related - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91037/58919*

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in the veneration of images and states and bow down to them in order to show them veneration, but did the Early Church Fathers believe in venerating images and bow down to them in order to show respect and honour, but did the Early Church Fathers believe and practice bowing to and venerating images/statues?

Protestants are against having statues and images and often quote Exodus 20:4, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians have beautiful statues and images in their church, but did the Early Church Fathers have statues and images in church and did they support the usage of images and statues in the church?

The fourth council of Constantinople , held in 869-870 under Pope Hadrian II, is recognized as an official ecumenical council by the Roman Catholic Church (according to Catholic.com). The EWTN website has this to say regarding the infallibility of teachings promulgated by ecumenical councils: > Whenever the Pope alone or the bishops in union with the Pope exercise their divinely appointed office to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, the teaching is infallible. The **most solemn expression** of this teaching authority would be an **ecumenical council** (which by definition would include and be in union with the Pope). Therefore, all the solemn **teachings on faith and morals promulgated by the ecumenical councils are infallible**. This council, therefore, infallibly affirms the following canons: Canon 1 > If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, **we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps** which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. **Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God**, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful. This Canon goes on to proclaim that all preceding and forthcoming Canons are to be esteemed and obeyed as a second word of God *thus elevating tradition to equal footing with Holy Scripture*. Canon 3 > **We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels.** For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book, we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours. **It is only right then**, in accordance with true reason and very ancient tradition, that icons should be honoured and venerated in a derivative way because of the honour which is given to their archetypes, **and it should be equal to that given to the sacred book of the holy gospels** and the representation of the precious cross. This Canon goes on to include all iconic representations of Mary, angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs and holy men as well as those of all the saints. Additionally, this Canon pronounces anathema for all who are not inclined to so venerate icons: > Let those who are not so disposed be anathema from the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit. * Anathema - 1) something or someone that one vehemently dislikes; 2) a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine. So, there is a Catholic Canon, which is to be esteemed as equal in authority to the Gospels themselves (according to another Canon) and which is described as an infallible teaching to the whole Church regarding faith and morals, which *infallibly pronounces anathema upon anyone who does not venerate icons with an honor equal to that given to the Gospels themselves*. 1) Do individual Catholics actually venerate icons with honor equal to that of the Gospels? 2) Do those who do not consider icons and the Gospels equally honorable realize they have been pronounced separated from the Trinity by the 4th Council of Constantinople or has this particular Canon been cancelled?

According to An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. : >The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.” There are many other references that agree that prior to 3rd or 4th century only non Christian groups ever used the symbol of the cross in their worship. There is also the matter of whether or not Jesus was put to death on a cross or a single upright stake as the Ancient Greek words stauros indicates. Thus I am asking: How does the Catholic Church explain the cross becoming acceptable to use and venerate as a symbol of Christianity?

I've seen both terms (*veneration* and *devotion*) used when referring to the Catholic attitude toward Mary and the Saints. According to Catholicism, what is the difference between these two terms?

In Orthodoxy, cremation after death is not permitted. It is not preferred in Catholicism. This is because of the strong respect for the integrity of the body. Both traditions are also strongly pro-life/anti-abortion. Yet all churches in these traditions must be consecrated with the relics of a saint. So is someone out there...cutting up saints' bodies?! How do these traditions understand the dignity of a body, even to the point of not destroying a dead one, but yet we disseminate these holy relics? (Please note I am not asking why we *venerate* relics, I am asking how their *creation* squares with other teachings on bodies.)

We Catholics keel when praying in front of an icon representing God (e.g. a statue of Jesus, or a crucifix as in some confessionals), or during an Eucharistic Adoration. However, some people also kneel in front of a statue depicting the Virgin Mary (or that of some saints). I do understand that, theologically speaking, proper veneration of Mary and saints does not represent idolatry, but kneeling seems to be, in my opinion, something reserved for God alone. As [Philippians 2:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A10-11&version=NIV) says: >that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth So, beyond a justification based on mere cultural practices or habits, is there a dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium, or a theological justification (yet not dogmatic) stating that kneeling to venerate Mary is a "valid" practice? As far as I understand, dogmatic teachings only pertain to issues of faith and morals, meaning the justification for it might not be found there. There are two questions ([here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61165/how-do-catholics-answer-the-question-of-idol-worship-within-the-faith) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/why-do-catholics-bow-for-icons-of-the-virgin-mary)) which are related to the issue of veneration of saints/Mary, and of bowing to Mary. But there are not specific in details regarding kneeling (which in my view is much stronger than bowing).

Are Roman Catholics **required** *at any time* to bow down or make obeisance to or kiss statues, images, icons, etc. (i.e., inanimate objects)? If so, is it considered a sin not to?

Each year on the Good Friday service at my parish we venerate the cross, but I really wish it were a crucifix, and I've wondered why we don't have one for that purpose. I've been trying to find one to just drop off at the church with a note saying "this is better, keep it", but before I do, I would like to know if the Catholic Church has any restrictions as to what kind of a cross can be venerated during the Good Friday service? Does the cross have to be a certain size, of a certain material, or are we even allowed to venerate a cross sans-Corpus?