When presented with a piece of wood from the true Cross, should you worship it? You might have read the headline of this post, and thought, “That’s got to be clickbait. Of course we don’t worship the true Cross.” But here’s the thing: St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you. One of the things in the Summa Theologiae that shocked me the most was his claim that we should worship the true Cross… and he makes a good argument for it (as well as some really important distinctions). Understanding why you ought to worship is actually critical for understanding Christian worship more broadly.
Aquinas’ position is actually quite extreme, in that he says that “honor or reverence is due to a rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor or reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature.” So the Cross is either worth worshipping (because of its connection to Christ), or it’s not worth honoring at all (because it’s a dead tree, and we’re not nature worshippers). So when and how can we properly honor an inanimate object with the honor due to a rational being? Aquinas says that there are only two possible reasons:
- Because it represents a person; or
- Because it is connected to a person.
He explains “in the first way men are wont to venerate the king’s image; in the second way, his robe. And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king.” Or, to take a modern example, imagine a woman whose husband goes away on a trip: she holds on to his photo as well as to his sweater. The photo is because of representation (it is an image of him), the sweater is because of association (it is something he wore). Those are the two categories. So use whichever examples make that distinction clear – I’ll use the king ones that Aquinas offers. Here’s why those are so central to Christian worship:
1. The King’s Image
The first of these two categories covers religious images, which is why we kneel in worship before icons of Christ. And Aquinas makes a critical distinction here: “no reverence is shown to Christ’s image, as a thing—for instance, carved or painted wood,” and that “reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image.”
That distinction between treating an icon “as a thing” and treating it “as an image” sounds subtle, but it’s not really. Today, my 10 month-old daughter saw my picture on my Costco card and kissed it and waved to it, because she recognized that it was me (side note: she’s very cute, and very smart). Even as an infant, she obviously knows the difference between me, sitting next to her, and the grainy black-and-white picture of me on the Costco card. As a thing, it’s a piece of plastic. As an image, it’s her dad. And the honor she paid the image wasn’t to the piece of plastic, but to me. And (because I’m not a crazy person) I was honored by her doing this, not jealous of the guy on the card.
This explains why Catholics and Orthodox are more than comfortable with religious images, and why we honor the images of the Saints and worship the images of Christ… because we’re not honoring (or worshipping) the paint, but the people depicted. But this idea is actually much, much bigger than you may have realized. Aquinas cites St. John Damascene, who says “On what grounds, then, do we show reverence to each other unless because we are made after God’s image [Gen. 1:26-27]? For as Basil, that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honour given to the image passes over to the prototype.” In other words, our love of neighbor is rooted in the fact that our neighbor is an image of God. Jesus makes this point in a subtle way in Matthew 22:17-21:
Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
The parallel Jesus is drawing is between the coin (stamped with the image of Caesar) and the human person (stamped with the image of God). It’s one reason why desecration of currency has historically been seen as an affront to the king depicted on the currency. For instance, the book Culture and Customs of Thailand tells how “in 2001 a Scottish national made the nearly fatal mistake of urinating on a picture of the king, which under Thai law carries the death penalty. Instead, he was deported after a jail term and much international embarrassment.” More positively, it’s why Jesus says that at the Last Judgment the King of Kings will say “truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40). The honor given to our neighbor as an image of God is ultimately paid to God.
So the point here is actually much bigger than whether or not we can use images in worship. It’s at the heart of why it’s okay (and indeed, salvifically necessary) for us to love our neighbor, in a way that it’s not okay to (say) love money.
2. The King’s Robe
The first category explains why painting or statue of the Crucifixion is an invitation to worship. But that doesn’t really explain why we would worship the true Cross even when Jesus is not upon it. That’s because of the second category: the Cross is (if you will) a “thing of God,” a thing associated with God in such a way that it’s an invitation to worship. In this sense, it is like honoring the robes of the king, or kissing the king’s shoes. You don’t do that because you are enamored with his fashion choices, but out of respect for the king himself. This again is solidly biblical (Matt. 9:20-22):
And behold, a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment; for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well.” Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.
Why did the woman believe that touching the hem of Christ’s garment would heal her? It wasn’t superstition, like thinking that Jesus wore magical clothing. But it also wasn’t like she was tugging on Him to get His attention. Rather, she seemed to have in mind the fact that since these were Jesus’ garments, therefore they were a legitimate place to look for a miracle, just as she would from Jesus Himself. And Jesus doesn’t condemn this: in fact, He praises her for her faith!
We see this through the things associated with the Apostles as well: the early Christians “carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them” (Acts 5:15), and “God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12). This is why Catholics treat relics seriously: God works through the things associated with the Saints, just as He did through those Saints while they were on earth. And that’s even more true of those things associated, not just with the Saints, but with Jesus Himself. St. Augustine points this out in City of God:
For if the dress of a father, or his ring, or anything he wore, be precious to his children, in proportion to the love they bore him, with how much more reason ought we to care for the bodies of those we love, which they wore far more closely and intimately than any clothing! For the body is not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man’s very nature.
3. The King’s Body
The point here is actually much bigger than relics. Why do we worship the Incarnate Jesus? After all, “the King of ages” is “immortal, invisible, the only God” (1 Tim. 1:17). The people of the first century could no more see Jesus’ divine nature than we can see it today. They saw His humanity, and those who believed, saw through His humanity (so to speak) to His divinity. This is what Jesus encourages of the Apostle Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing” (John 20:27). Even though Thomas could see the Body of the resurrected Christ, it still took faith for him to say, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
We honor the bodies of the just even when they’re dead. The Patriarch Joseph made his sons swear to bring his bones back to the Holy Land (Gen. 50:25), and they did (Ex. 13:19); the prophet from Judah made special provisions about his own tomb (1 Kings 13:31), leading King Josiah to order it not to be disturbed (2 Kings 23:18); and God actually raises a man from the dead when his dead body touches the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21). And this means that it is right and just to continue to give honor and worship to the Body of Jesus, even when He is dead. After all, Jesus praises Mary of Bethany for anointing Him, because “in pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial” (Matt. 26:12). And as Augustine points out, “the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly burial cloths, and see to its burial” (cf. John 19:38-40).
Jesus’ humanity is therefore both (a) an image of His divinity, and (b) associated with His divinity. Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus “is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” That’s the first reason we worship Him in His humanity – His humanity is imprinted with divinity. But the second reason is that Jesus’ humanity is perfectly united to His divinity, and that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). In other words, His humanity is the instrument of our salvation. In that sense, it’s like both the king’s coin and the king’s robe. That’s why we worship the Eucharist as the Body of Christ. But if that reasoning holds, it’s also why we worship the true Cross, because of “its contact with the limbs of Christ, and from its being saturated with His blood.” Keep in mind the distinction Aquinas makes: we don’t worship the true Cross itself as dead wood, or the hem of Jesus’ garment as inanimate cloth, or the Body of Christ as flesh. Rather, we worship God in (or through) these things. The same principle holds in each of these cases, even though the Cross isn’t connected to Jesus in the exact same way that either His humanity and divinity are connected, or the way that His clothing was connected to Him.
4. The King’s Mother?
Given what I’ve written here, you might be wondering, “Why don’t we worship Mary, then?” After all, as Aquinas admits, “Christ’s Mother is more akin to Him than the cross,” and we’ve just established that true worship is to be paid to the Cross. The reason is precisely that Mary isn’t an inanimate object. She’s a person, and one we honor for her own sake. To avoid confusing the honor owed to Mary and the honor owed to Christ, we don’t worship Christ in Mary, in the same way that we worship Christ in images of Him, or in the true Cross.
To go back to the earlier analogy, a woman might kiss her husband’s photo when he’s gone, or spend the night wearing his sweater, because those are inanimate objects which are honored exclusively for their connection to him. She doesn’t do anything of the sort with her father-in-law, because he’s a separate human being, and it would therefore be wrong. There’s some honor due to your father-in-law, by virtue of his connection to your spouse, but you don’t treat your spouse and father-in-law as interchangeable. Likewise, you venerate the king’s image and his robe, but the honor you pay to his mother isn’t the same. As Aquinas says, “the honor due to the king’s mother is not equal to the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by reason of a certain excellence on her part.” This is also why, even though we hopefully see Christ in our neighbor, we don’t worship our neighbors. So Mary, both as an image of God and the Mother of God, is due high honors, but we don’t give her the singular honor of divine worship. That belongs to God alone.
(By the way: Some of you loved, and some of you hated, the last post I did on how to vote as a Catholic. Either way, I think an important supplement to it can be found in this podcast episode Jennie and I just did with Archbishop Naumann, getting much more into the weeds on issues like abortion and racism. Also, on Monday, I’ll have both a new podcast episode and a new article for Word on Fire responding to Dr. Jerry Walls’ “STRONGEST argument against Catholicism,” so keep an eye out!)
As I was watching the “STRONGEST argument against Catholicism” video, I immediately remembered your book, so I’m looking forward to your article and podcast. Hopefully, I can buy and read your book in the future.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the depth of our faith that we forget what it was like to first wrestle with the big questions – Who am I? What am I searching for? What’s our shared story? Who is Jesus? Why do we need a Church? Is there a God? We all need to get back to the basics to make sure the foundation is strong.
I think this is a great article and helps me think about and understand these concepts. I am somewhat confused by what you mean when you refer to “Worship”
The distinctions I had invented for myself are that we Worship the object of worship, God. We reverence the things connected to Him. So by that definition, I don’t worship the cross because the cross can’t answer my prayers, God can. But I can reverence the cross for the reasons you describe. But you use the word Worship here to describe both concepts, it seems.
Can you please expand on the difference between worship and reverence?
I agree that the article is very good. I also wondered at the difference between the terms ‘reverence’ and ‘worship.’ I worked it through like this:
It seems that Aquinas drew from Aristotle’s ‘Memory and Recollection’ where Aristotle discussed ‘reverence’ (rather than the term ‘worship’). Aristotle claimed that reverence was not due to things or to creatures without rationality. Only rational creatures ought to be revered.
Aquinas then logically inferred that by its representation or association to Christ, the cross is worthy of reverence. To revere a deity–or a thing by virtue of its representation or association to the deity–is the same as to worship the deity. We neither revere nor worship a cross as a standalone, non-rational thing. We revere and worship a cross because Christ is brought to mind by it. If Christ is not brought to mind by the cross, to revere or to worship it would be idolatry, right?
Perhaps today our usage tends to reserve the term ‘worship’ for God alone while accepting ‘reverence’ for many things, irrespective of their relationship to God. Wikidiff only served to further confuse me. https://wikidiff.com/revere/worship
There is no reason legitimate relics like the Shroud of Turin should not be treated with all reverence. God has provided them to us for His purposes. Like every other sphere of human activity however, we are inclined to go too far and in the wrong directions. Hence the trade in relics and phony relics at that, and the near-shamanistic treatment of them at times.
As we do not, by God’s will I trust, possess the true cross, I fail to see why a debate about whether we should “worship” it? Leaving aside the question of what “worship” is in such a context. Surely no one who is a follower of Christ can fail to grasp the holiness of the cross – devils and demons certainly know its power, but to “worship” it? Why is that even a debate? We are to worship God in His three persons, that is all Christ commanded. Those who think they can modify or add to what Christ said are welcome to put that stone around their necks if they wish.
These painful and protracted extrapolations, presumptions, and assumptions are a denominational specialty of Roman Catholicism, in part I suppose because so many of the doctrines are based on such tenuous linkages, and once the habit is begun it persists.
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.”
I suppose if we have some time left over from that we could debate whether and how to “worship” the cross, but I suspect that if we do those thing we will have done the worship that He desires.
So using this argument you would literally conclude that everyone should kneel in worship before each other as images of God 🙄
Except that lo and behold having made that exact argument for worship of God through others, Catholics then debunk themselves and arbitrarily argue that this is actually only appropriate through inanimate objects, thus proving (apparently), that worship of God through inanimate objects whether a likeness of not are appropriate. Plus of course some unrelated drivel about hem of Jesus garment, handkerchiefs and a golden calf….. oh no wait…. A golden calf IS an inanimate object, but that was inappropriate. A piece of wood though – perfectly ok! 🤨
Oh and btw Catholics, there is literally zero evidence for a true cross relic. Every church in Europe had a piece not that long ago. Wakey wakey!
As a Catholic, I learned much from this article. The incredible history we have with those such as Aquinas. There really doesn’t seem to be minds and hearts to compare these days! Then, I came to the comments and lo and behold, the Protestors are here. I must say at 55 years old, and having heard all the snide, prideful comments from them I’ve come to the discernment that nearly all the Protestors would be gone if there were no Catholic Church. Their faith depends so much upon (As did the Pharisees) proving the Catholic Church wrong. Frankly, I’m tired of it. I think Jesus grew very weary of the Pharisees also.
Thanks for the great article, by the way. You put alot of work into them. Thank you.