Images in the Church?

Hmm. I'm in the middle of doing some research for a paper of mine on the lesser-known reformer Huldrych Zwingli. I am frustrated by his position on the presence and use of images in the Church. In a book I'm currently wading through, it describes the Catholic view of images, which I tend to agree with (it's also in accord with the Orthodox position), that images in the Church have pedagogical value, and that, if Christ has in fact become human, then in a sense, producing images of Him affirms His incarnation, and what His incarnation (leading up to his crucifixion) was able to effect. Zwingli's Christology was what a systematic theologican may call Nestorian, the ways in which the divinity and human-ness of Jesus are sharply divided from each other. Zwingli's objections to images are also understandable, in consequence of His view of the radical distinction between the creature and the Creator, and the worship then owed the Creator. And the fact that any of these images are idols. And it's true: these images don't possess any real soteriological significance, and don't themselves possess the power to change the human heart. Anything physical (?) is an idol. I think perhaps he may have gone too far. He also conceived of the hearing of the Word as the most significant part of the service, over and above the Mass. I tend to think that the Mass, the Lord's Supper, the celebration of the Eucharist, is, in fact, one of the most significant times in the service of the church. It recalls to us the theological significance of Christ's broken body and shed blood, in reminds us that the church is a relational body (i.e. injunctions to make reparations before taking the elements), it evokes gratitude for the gift we have received in the event of the crucifixion -- this decisive moment in time in which we are able to be redeemed, it rehearses in us the life and death of Christ, it feeds us these things we need to hear and appropriate in our heart, these things necessary for salvation. But I also certainly want to affirm the power and use of the preaching of the Word; its exhortatory purpose, its power to divide our very soul and spirit, to test the things of our hearts, to hear the narratives of the Bible, to heed the advice of Paul in His epistles, to sorrow in the Psalms, to read of the healings Jesus performed in the power of the Holy Spirit, and on and on and on. I've certainly gotten carried away, but these thoughts often provoke me, and reading what Zwingli had to say on the matter distresses me. I do not doubt that he was recommending what he believed to be best in his social, etc. circumstances, and that his faith was genuine, but that he leapt a little too far on this particular issue (and it also evidences the slight unsoundness of his theology--although my theology is a bit unsound, I suppose, as well).