Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion ! (And a proper one, at that)

[@TruthUnites]

Appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of this! Here from my friend Erick Ybarra's recommendation. Haven't finished but a few thoughts after about halfway through (will keep watching as I can; forgive if these are addressed later): 1) I think my biggest disagreement is what is anathematized at Nicaea. Around 26:50 you say something like, "Nicaea 2 is not against your friendly Protestant pastor. It's against those actively destroying images." Strong disagree. As I said in my video, there were plenty of iconoclasts who did not destroy them. They preferred the term iconomachy (iconoclasm was the term given by their enemies.) There is a spectrum of iconoclasm; lots of different kinds. Nicaea II manifestly does not limit its anathemas to only the most rigorous, or those actively destroying images. Just read through the anathemas. They are targeted at those who don't kiss images, who knowingly communicate with those who do, who claim it is idolatry, etc. 2) Related to this, the Council of Trent reiterates the thrust of the anathemas of Nicaea II toward the general group of people that don't accept the practice. Those who oppose the council's affirmation of the invocation and veneration of relics and saints and images "are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them." It seems that this general class of people who reject the theology is condemned. So you don't have to be burning images and tearing them off walls to meet the anathemas. 3) Around 23:00, to counter the claim that the distinction between worship and veneration is absent in the ante-Nicene church, you marshal Augustine. Augustine is not pre-Nicaea 1. He was born 30 years after it. At any rate, I did not claim there is no distinction between worship and other forms of honor as such in the early church (or the Bible), but that such a distinction is absent with respect to the cultic use of images. 4) Not sure it's fair to fault me for not discussing these various points of historical context, like Islam, etc. Its definitely true that my video was not exhaustive and perhaps some of these points could have given a fuller picture. I was focusing on what I needed to make my historical case. I did discuss the pagan ideology of images a bit, starting of my overview of "phase 2." However, to the general point of historical context, I wouldn't agree that I am missing failing to enter the minds of the bishops of Nicaea II. I see this in the opposite way: I worry modern Roman Catholic readings of Nicaea II are reading it through the lens of post-Vatican 2 Catholicism that is much more conciliatory, and not really entering into the brutality of the 8th century. 5) "There is no claim at Nicaea II that the apostles venerated icons." This was said around 17:30. What do you do with language from Nicaea II like "this is the faith of the apostles," the repeated affirmation of icon veneration as contrary to innovations, representing the faith untainted with nothing added or taken away, etc.? Perhaps you address this later? 6) I don't agree that images themselves go back to the apostles, and then there is an "explosion" of art in the 3rd century. On my reading, we have no evidence of any ANY Christian art until the 3rd century -- and then it is usually more meager -- often engravings on furniture, e.g. I agree with you, though, that this doesn't mean it wasn't present. I just think we need to be accurate that the claim that art goes back to the apostles has no evidence -- unless you are aware of something I am not. 7) I do agree "doctrinal development" is not the best category for the best Catholic defenses. I refer to doctrinal development because that is how many Catholics defend respond. Also, I don't think we can ultimately separate the cultic and doctrinal in this case, so cultic development requires elaboration of the meaning of doctrinal development. 8) 34:37: To clarify, I did not say "religious imagery is permissible but merely didactic" and that is not my position. In my video I referenced that there are a variety of uses for images -- I tend to think commemorative and decorative were more common, early on, although narrative art also fits naturally with a didactic purpose, and that is what Gregory the Great mentions. But there are a whole panoply of ways to use images. My specific concern is cultic use of images. I'll keep listening, thanks again for engaging my video. Gavin

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@TruthUnites Gavin, a sincere thank you, both for your original video and for leaving us some feedback/pushback here. Not expecting a response video, per se, as you are probably exhausted with response videos at this point lol. However, please do continue to leave the rest of your comments here, and we will respond to them once they’re all in. Of course, in a comments section you likely won’t be able to express the fullness of your thoughts, so we will do our best to at least foresee the trajectory of each response point and do it justice in our own responses. Don’t want to straw man anything that you’re saying. I think all of this has been really beneficial for both Catholics and Protestants alike. One of the best things that we can hope for is to arrive at an argumentative impasse, b/c that will at least demonstrate that we’ve both reached the bottom of the issue for our respective audiences, and it just comes time for each side to make a decision as to which argument makes the most sense to them (and perhaps it will spur us all on to a deeper point of departure that lies beneath Nicaea 2 in the areas of Christology and ecclesiology). Thanks again, appreciate your thoughts, and looking forward to any other reactions you might have. God bless. -TCB

[@TruthUnites]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Thanks for the kind response, and I love the idea of being content with an argumentative impasse. One thing I have learned about ecumenical dialogue is that it takes a long time to make progress and thus simply delineating the differences is a huge positive for the long run. Okay so I finished this while doing chores and watching my kids so I must confess my response will be very imperfect and incomplete. This comment is also written somewhat hastily so forgive misunderstandings, things that went unaddressed, etc. Just see it as a springboard for further discussion. 1) First, about relics. I don't agree that veneration of relics and other physical places and things is a kind of universal, uncontested practice from the beginning. This smuggles in too much under the general umbrella of the word "veneration." There are huge differences between how Polycarp's bones were treated vs. what the Reformers were eventually facing in the medieval era. I don't have any problem with venerating relics in the sense of treating them with respect and honor; but the historic Protestant concern was that as church history progressed things went way overboard into idolatry and superstition. Already you see warnings in Augustine and others about when the use of relics goes too far (e.g., thinking that your prayers will be more efficacious when prayed next to the tomb of a martyr, etc.), and by the medieval era abuses had mushroomed up to great excess: people thinking having the tooth of a martyr will protect their village from demons; people planting the garment of clothing from a saint into their garden for better crops; people thinking a Eucharist will be more efficacious if it is celebrated on an altar that displays the relics of saints or martyrs; people making vast pilgrimages to touch a relic so that their son or daughter will be healed; indulgences being given for touching or gazing on a relic; oaths taking on special meaning when taken in reference to a relic; and so forth. There are clear changes from patristic practice. I think relics is a point where Protestants and Catholics can somewhat come back together today. Many of these excesses are no longer practiced among Catholics; and we as Protestants do not deny value in relics in general. However, when it comes to bowing and/or praying through (i.e., what would be relevant as a parallel to icon veneration), we do think this crosses a line. All this would need to be worked through more but I'm at least flagging this for further discussion. What cannot be done is a straight arrow from Polycarp to icon veneration. 2) On the incarnation. At times there is the idea that my real concern isn't with icons, but with a fully worked out theology of the incarnation. I don't accept this. For example, it was stated that I don't call Mary the mother of God, but I in fact do. I would argue that I have a fully mature doctrine of the incarnation, and icon veneration simply isn't a legitimate entailment of that. I realize again we need to work through this. But to summarize, if icon veneration were a legitimate entailment of the incarnation, you'd think that would be mentioned by the incarnate Christ himself, or at least by some of the early Christians during or within a few hundred years of the incarnation. Given the second commandment and prior understanding, that seems a reasonable expectation. That leads to a third point. 3) On the ante-Nicene witness. If I understand correctly, the idea is that all these early Christians were too Platonic, perhaps Gnostic at times as well. I could understand this if it were applied only to some Christians in this time period. But when it is applied to ALL, I worry it becomes condescending to these early Christians, implying basically that NO ONE could really figure out the incarnation in its cultic implications until hundreds and hundreds of years after the fact. I don't see how this doesn't result in a "Uturn" theory of doctrinal/cultic development. Not all the ante-Nicene fathers were equally influenced by Platonism, and not all argued against cultic use of icons on Platonic grounds, so I think the theory of Platonic influence only goes so far. But I might be missing something here; pretty sure this section of the video was during lots of interruptions from my kids; would be happy to hear further. 4) On Nicaea 2, following up on an earlier point: I think you are reading one passage and setting it against others to make it sound like only icons, not icon veneration, goes back to the apostles. When I read through the final session, I simply don't think this works. Looking all the statements, it seems clear the claims are more ambitious than that. Nicaea 2 seems to clearly claim the theology in question -- icon veneration -- is apostolic in form and practice. This may be a key point of difference to explore. I probably won't be able to respond further, at least anytime soon, but perhaps we can talk down the future a bit. The next month for me is crazy. Thanks again for the thoughtful engagement; this was a really good video.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

🔥

[@veritascaritas625]

Why do you "brothers" consider Francis to be "Catholic", when he's clearly both spoken and engaged in heresy?

[@nathanjstoic]

@@veritascaritas625What kinds of heresy?

[@Erick_Ybarra]

You guys rock. This is the way we need to do this.

[@brantleyrutz]

Ybarra stamped.

[@mariorizkallah5383]

The great fast begins soon

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Just found you guys via my friend Erick Ybarra and I see you’re reverts with an interesting story to tell! I’d love to have you on my show if you’re interested!

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Would love to, just saw your DM and will respond there. 🤝

[@nateewongo3905]

Praying that this channel will continue to grow exponentially! 🙏 It's a true hidden gem.

[@toddbyrd9071]

Thanks for the great videos, gentlemen. One of the best Catholic channels going

[@chloesmith4673]

I really like this channel so far, but I only just found it. I am wondering what other catholic channels you like, so that I may check them out, since we are aligned on this one.

[@raeldc]

I wish I can thumbs up 👍 this video a million times.

[@raeldc]

@YAJUNYUAN glad I’m now on your radar.

[@JR-tl8tg]

The Shroud Of Turin should put the issue to rest.

[@jeremyfrost3127]

Why?

[@Jerônimo_de_Estridão]

Ortlund says that the prayer that the council used was asking too much of someone that wasn't Jesus, but the Iconoclast council of Hieria condemn those who do not pray to the saints. In my opinion that reveal the way Ortulund was reading the whole controverse was wrong.

[@Devv_93]

Best response on this topic yet! Very through and completely historically based. Great job guys! 🙏🏽

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Perhaps, but still not evidence to prove anything Gavin presented as false. Gavin proved you are engaged in idolatry. The correct thing to do is to correct your theology, honor God, and leave your man-made church

[@mathewsoa]

@@Ttcopp12rt "Gavin proved you are engaged in idolatry. " I believe Gavin explicitly denies this. He doesn't ascribe intentions or pretend to read minds. If he was falsely accusing billions of Christians of worshiping idols, that would be pretty disappointing, but I don't think he does that.

[@Devv_93]

@@Ttcopp12rt Honestly, seems like you didn’t even watch the whole vid so I probably shouldn’t give you the time of day… But, all Gavin proved was that many of the church fathers were still working out their christology and lacked the full understanding of the ramification the incarnation places on our theology. God made a venerable image of Himself in our Lord. Once you realize how important that is, there’s no problem here.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@Devv_93 And that, my friend, it exactly why you are an idolater... (1). The fact that God became incarnate was not for an example of veneration - it was for redemption, (2). Your reasoning makes God a liar regarding his warning about idolatry and graven images. Using your logic Islam must be true because we can Texas-Sharpshoot many in the Bible and equally say they support the Quran

[@IC_XC_NIKA]

@@Ttcopp12rt these protestant arguments of yours are so low-tier it's not even funny. Respectfully, your sect didn't even exist when our Church had these discussions centuries ago. Do yourself a favor & just watch the video.

[@jowardseph]

It's a good day when the Brothers post!

[@HvaljenIsus]

Excellent response! I am glad I found your channel. May God continue to bless your work and make it fruitful!!

[@noralg3081]

I truly appreciate your response to the issue. Wow did I learn a lot. My hand was starting to ache from all the notes I was taking . Great video !

[@R.C.425]

As I see it, the Shroud of our Lord, started this and his followers started honoring it and creating more images....just my thoughts Thank you

[@LambsServant]

I have not watched the video yet but there could be a passing reference to the Shroud in Gal. 3:1. Some have commented the the verse could also be referencing a crucifix. Given how early Christians viewed and venerated relics I don’t think that it would be a great leap to extend veneration to images as well. Was Gal 3:1 catechetical in nature or did they cross the line to veneration? If this was indeed the Shroud then I could not imagine that they would not venerate the Image. I hope that the Catholic Brothers, Ybarra, or Gavin take a deeper look at this. Could this be the smoking gun for veneration of images going back to Apostolic times? There’s also something called a staromark. Not sure if I spelled that correctly but ancient Christians combined two letters together in which it appears as a crucifix. Now, was that catechetical or hinted at veneration? That might be another avenue to go down in early Christian veneration of images.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

​@Stickfigure Are you sure you have the right chapter and verse? I just checked it out and there is no mention of what you're referring to. I have read it before, where Paul refers to the cloth, but I can't remember what book, chapter or verse it was.

[@LambsServant]

@@myrddingwynedd2751 Here is Gal. 3:1, 1 "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified." The Galatians saw Our Lord as publicly portrayed as crucified. Now, they did not witness the crucifixion so that leaves them either seeing a crucifix or, perhaps, the Shroud. There are pollen grains from that area so that leads me to believe that they saw what we would call the Shroud of Turin.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@Stickfigure Oh, I believe in the shroud 100%. I've done enough research on the subject to know that. I'm not sure Paul is referring to the shroud in that passage though.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@Stickfigure I found the verse I was referring to. I'm not sure about this but someone surmised that Paul was referring to the shroud in this passage. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments. 2 Timothy 4-13

[@brantleyrutz]

The massive San Damiano cross behind Dan made this video exponentially more potent IMHO.

[@woozyjoe4703]

My dear brothers. I loved this video. It was really helpful to me. I am not Catholic but am considering becoming Orthodox and I have found the issue of Icons to be a stumbling block. Thank you for this and God Bless you both

[@brien1513]

Well, it's one step closer to the True Church. So yaaaaay! But if you dig into the separation between Catholic and Orthodox, hopefully you'll make the next step towards Catholicism.

[@proggenius2024]

Welcome to the one true church my brother. I believe Orthodox is the true church. Catholic is the closest friend.

[@proggenius2024]

@@brien1513Are you sure Catholic is the one true church? Have you researched enough about Orthodoxy?

[@jaikelr]

Thank you guys! I appreciate your efforts. God bless you!

[@OstKatholik]

Great work!!

[@lyterman]

That boy Suan sent me here

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Welcome to the jungle!

[@andyfisher2403]

Saw you guys on Suan's channel. I'm enjoying your approach. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow.

[@proggenius2024]

Thank you for this helpful discussion and response our brothers.

[@ConnieRossini]

This was great! I especially appreciate how you tied this discussion to mental prayer, as prominent problematic prayer practices (alliteration unintended) of recent decades often cite Evagrius. As Teresa of Avila taught, even when one reaches a high state of infused contemplation (which is a supernatural prayer beyond images and concepts), one can never fully leave behind meditating on the Sacred Humanity. It is precisely the Incarnation that leads us to, and makes union possible with, the ineffable God. Subscribing to your channel.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Great comment! Welcome aboard

[@Ghest735]

God bless you

[@joshanderson8566]

Great video!! I appreciate the work you guys do! God bless

[@susand3668]

Excellent! It is good for me to watch this every so often!

[@woozyjoe4703]

Initially I was swayed by your arguments but in fact when I read what the anathemas said I completely agreed with Gavin. Still I'm encouraged by the tone the three of you have taken in your discussions. Thanks for making youtube a little bit better 🙂

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Fair enough! 🙂 Thanks for tuning in, my friend. You don’t have to, but if you’d like to, could you elaborate a bit about what in the anathemas inclined you more towards Gavin’s position? Thanks again for listening!

[@woozyjoe4703]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Thank you. It's a pleasure listening to your channel. This topic is important to me as I've been on a journey from an evangelical protestant background towards Orthodoxy. I'm 95% in love with the Orthodox Church but I really struggle with Icon veneration. I can't understand how it can be essential to salvation as many have told me is the Orthodox view, including the first priest I met. Since then another priest told me this wasn't so and it left me a little confused hence my interest. I will come back and explain why I've been swayed but please let me have some time to pray more and watch your video (and Gavin's ) again and also to go over my reading about the Council. I'm not trying to avoid the topic but it's really confusing me and I do swing a little back and forth on it. I would love to find a way forward. My ( second ) Priest told me to relax and accept I'm on a journey and that God knows this and is in charge and so I'm going with that. However, I want to settle in a Christian home sooner rather than later Oh and by the way, even though I'm shilly-shallying, I still love your video and you have a new subscriber 🙂

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@woozyjoe4703 completely empathize with your current journey. I felt the same turmoil when I was in the throes of these types of questions as an Anglican. To be quite honest, I would also suggest that you are in the middle of two extremes on this issue. Protestantism, tending towards the aniconic, and Eastern Orthodox, tending towards a bit of an obsession with icons. For me, the Roman posture towards images is a bit more wholesome, balanced, open-ended. Rome doesn’t have the modern theology of icon that the East does, even though we are all in agreement with the decision and anathemas of Nicaea 2. (Be careful how you are interpreting “anathema”). Rome (both Latin and Eastern Catholic), in my opinion, has maintained the original orthodoxy of the question at hand, while also perpetuating the didactic tradition of folks like Gregory the Great and Co. Not that Orthodoxy hasn’t, but I too found some of their assertions about icons to go beyond the theology of Nicaea 2 when I myself was very seriously considering Orthodoxy. You might also want to check out our interview on Nicaea 2 on Suan’s channel, Intellectual Catholicism. If you haven’t yet, go to our playlists and click on “Interviews,” and you should see it there: “What Nicaea II Really Taught.” Suan has great thoughts on this too. Anyway, thanks for listening, and we’re here to bounce off any ideas/struggles you’re having as you move along your journey. Be patient, study, and pray (as you already seem to be doing 🙂). Wherever you end up, you and your thoughts are welcome here! We enjoy cross-denominational dialogue, friendly debate, and mutual sharing of gifts.

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

God bless you guys! I have done a video as well with Dr Jim Papandrea! Thank you for your contributions! Subbed.

[@tonyl3762]

Find you through Suan's channel. Definitely added to the debate! Clearly Ortlund thought so too.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

In college our Newman Center was being re-constructed, so we rented out an event space at the school’s alumni center. In order to make an impromptu “apse,” an art student painted 3 life-sized icons on plywood of the Immaculate Conception, Christ in Majesty, and St. Joseph Terror of Demons. These things were huge and gorgeous. They have been preserved in basement study rooms of the new Newman Hall. Will they be there in 30 years? Maybe. Will they be there in 1900 years? Almost certainly not. I feel like some Protestants expect that if icon veneration were common in the early church that we would find a ton of examples. But that seems as silly as expecting our plywood paintings to survive 2 millennia. Especially since our Newman center has a higher Christian population than all of Italy did in the first century.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

This is a very fair point. The fact that Gregory mentions Christian statues on top of the churches and *none* of those have survived should give us an indication of what to expect for painted Christian images from the earliest centuries of the church.

[@paulodasilva7701]

Thanks Brothers. Another great video!

[@christiansacra599]

Best review I’ve seen so far to the original video. Glad to see you guys working in this idea space

[@kimberlysamuels9971]

Thank you.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@charleswalsh9895]

Protestant always "read" into anything "Catholic ". Protestant denomination always condemned Catholic belief. As if 1st century jumped to the 16th century

[@mariorizkallah5383]

Which Church Fathers would support Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate?

[@ConnieRossini]

@@mariorizkallah5383 St. Augustine, for one. He said that when we speak of without and within in regards to the Church, there are many people outside the Church who are in it in their hearts, and many people inside the Church who are outside it in their hearts.

[@EmberBright2077]

If you say so, it must be true

[@tonyl3762]

What do you think of Seraphim Hamilton's/Michael Garten's attempt to prove that no accretion actually happened? Have you watched their 2 videos on pre-Nicaea iconodulism and archaeology/enemy witnesses?

[@MichaelGarten]

Thanks for the shoutout! For the record, we don’t deny development occurred, but Seraphim and I claim that a basic form of the doctrine and practice of image veneration were there in the ante Nicene period (and even the apostolic age). We acknowledge that many details of what veneration looked like, what kinds of images were used, how the principles behind the practice were articulated, etc solidified over time (much like the doctrine of the Trinity)

[@AnselmInstitute]

Thank you for this video. I mentioned in my own the relevance of persecution to the Church's theological reflection in the early centuries. This is relevant to doctrinal development on this and other topics because prior to the Edict of Milan, it wasn't possible for Bishops of the whole Church to come together to discuss important theological issues and reach a consensus. Nicea I was made possible by the edict and the new found favor Christians had in the empire with Constantine. That the periods of concentrated persecution prior to this we're intermittent doesn't undermine this point as it was not possible for all Bishops to come together without the support of the empire. Hopefully this is helpful for clarification.

[@jimmu2008]

Thanks for your video. It's one of the best responses to Gavin Ortlund's video. I'd like to ask you something. I think people are misreading Eusebius's passage on the statue of Jesus. When I read it (in translation), I did not sense that he was critical of the statue itself. First, he does NOT say these Gentiles are Christians. I don't think he means that they are. Second, when he says they honor their "benefactors" "indiscriminately", I don't think he means that they honor Jesus in an inappropriate way (by erecting a statue). Rather, they are indiscriminate about who they honor. That is, they honor Jesus on the same level as their other benefactors. I don't see anything in the passage to indicate that Eusebius was critical of statues. In fact, he seems remarkably objective. If anything he seems interested in the statue because it would seem to collaborate the Gospel accounts of the healing of the Gentile woman. I'd like to hear some response to my interpretation of this passage. Thanks

[@distaff2935]

I watched that Ortlund video, but it has been a while. At the time, I didn't quite get it. Maybe because by then, I was already looking for and RCIA class to enroll in...

[@patriciamathews5975]

The bones veneration did not start with the Christians. Jacob made Joseph & the Israelites, promise to have his bones taken back to Israel, from Egypt 200-400 years later. Jacob's bones are in the cave of Machpelah today with Abraham, Isaac & Sarah in Israel. The tomb of Rachel is heavily venerated in Bethlehem today. David's tomb, and many more are great places of prayer & veneratuon. The sacred Temple articles taken to Babylon carried veneration & delivered their angels' condemnation by the "handwriting on the wall". St. Luke, the evangelist, is credited with the first Icon of Mary. Yes, we are on the other side of this issue & can freely venerate images, bones, or statues. We need many,more today because our eye gates are blasted by so much perverted or demonic images. If I have the opportunity to gaze upon a large, beautifully crafted stained glass window image of the Holy Family, it enlivens my soul & becomes a vehicle of worship, not for the glass image itself, but for the message within the Holy Family. 🙏

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Eucharistic Adoration is Adoration of Jesus Christ stressing the "God with us" dimension...

[@brianfarley926]

@YAJUN YUAN Eucharistic adoration is honoring and worshipping the one true God

[@brianfarley926]

@YAJUN YUAN funny would you say the Ark is an icon? Probably not considering God was more fully present there right? Or is the Trinity idolatry? Perhaps you understand distinctions with that one also that a Jew wouldn’t grant you God is more fully present in the tabernacles around the world of the CC. Body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ Perhaps set the same standards of distinctions you grant your faith but lack the charity to understand those distinctions exist in Catholicism

[@brianfarley926]

@YAJUN YUAN ah so you do apply distinctions. That’s good to hear. Should apply distinctions to Christian theology then and understand the Catholic position Such as Jesus is present in the tabernacle under the appearance of bread and wine. There’s a distinction there

[@brianfarley926]

@YAJUN YUAN not according to Jesus based his on words and the historical interpretation of the Apostles and those he taught. God used mud to heal a blind man. God made manna fall from the sky for 40 years to feed the Israelites. So if God says his flesh and his blood are there they are present at the Eucharist. The essence of the bread and wine becomes the body and blood. If you believe in the Resurrection which is also impossible that same faith is the exact same in the Eucharist. That’s what makes it a miracle

[@brianfarley926]

@YAJUN YUAN so Jesus lied? The Apostles lied?

[@jimmydavid1993]

Brilliant exposee. Subscribed

[@brien1513]

I think one flaw of the Protestant reproach to venerating icons and objects is that, as they might say, it doesn't go all the way back to...neither does protestantism if that argument is used. If the evidence they want is shown in the 2nd or 3rd centuries but not the first (not meaning that there isn't evidence or that there wasn't ever) it means it's false because....why wasn't it shown in the 1st if it's true. 1) isn't the 2nd and 3rd centuries early enough?? In comparison to Protestantism which came like a thousand or so years later? That's not early enough? 2) I think it it's a false assumption that all has to be revealed at once from the jump, for it to be true. Knowing mankind and how stupid and slow and prideful and stubborn we can be (the Apostles asked Jesus questions all the time and I can think of one instance when Jesus seemed exasperated with them because they didn't seem to get it), who's to say that God isn't slowly revealing things over the...ahem... fullness of time for when we need that knowledge? I'm a cradle catholic. Fell away, came back and hope to stay and I love learning about the Faith. But, man, there's a lot sometimes! And sometimes, just internally and spiritually we have to learn the same lesson over and over. So imagine if all mysteries were revealed all at once?

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Excellent video...

[@ms2646-q2t]

The part that is confusing to me, is if Nicea II isn't claiming the the apostles themselves venerated icons, but rather just that the practice of veneration is something that relies on the faith of the apostles, why is an anathema proclaimed on those who do not kiss images (or, I think some translations say salute instead of kiss)? Like if we all agree that the apostles probably were not kissing images, why is it no longer OK to, like them, not kiss images? And this is further confusing to me because the brothers seem to be saying that the council does not actually require veneration, but then they just said to go read the text yourself, and when I read it, it seems like it does require veneration. So what did this anathema mean if it does not require the act of veneration? Anyways, other that that one part I'm still confused on, I really appreciate the work you guys put into this video. Very very helpful to think through this issue. I love Trent Horn on other issues, but his response with Jimmy Akin to Gavin on this topic was even more confusing for me. I appreciate hearing your more historical perspective!

[@kevinmc62]

Ambrose’ song “Now that the daylight dies away” has a line Keep us, like shrines, beneath thine eye, I wonder if Jesus in an antiphonic refrain sings back to us “ keep Me like a shrine beneath your eyes as well”

[@mariorizkallah5383]

David Erhan made a video on Icon Veneration, showing it is in fact not a development but Apostolic.

[@jimmu2008]

@YAJUN YUAN As I said in a comment on your channel, Eusebius is either approving or at least neutral about the statue. If he is disapproving of anything, it is that these Gentiles in question were indiscriminate about venerating their benefactors, putting Jesus on a level with other benefactors. You really need to read the passage yourself.

[@kenmcrae8591]

In the Orthodox East, there is a tradition that St. Luke the Evangelist was the first iconographer; producing the first image of the Theotokos.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Yea it’s a late tradition though, so likely not going to be very convincing to a Protestant in the context of this argument. We have to play on their turf for the most part if we will convince them of our position. I, for one, would gladly admit the Shroud of Turin as evidence of the Apostles honoring images of Christ and of God Himself approving of images of His Son……but likely not a convincing argument for a Protestant to hear. We can keep those bits of evidence “within the family.” 😉

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@YAJUN YUAN I didn’t say it would be a good argument. I said the Shroud of Turin would be. I said the Lukan tradition is too late. Re-read my comment.

[@asgrey22]

Only halfway, wonderful video so far. Can only hope my own boys will have conversations like this one day. I would be curious if you find the renunciation of the cult of the emperor in the early centuries as having a place in this conversation as well? From what I understand, the demythologization of religion in favor of the religion of the Logos was really crucial in that time period. Benedict XVI talks about how they would renounce even the most harmless forms of the cult to distinguish Christianity from paganism and political power. It makes me wonder if after they successfully stripped away myth from Christianity, they were in a better place to examine the question of the role of images in Christianity from a theological standpoint rather than in the face of an urgent historical situation.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

Watching too, and so far my concern is what Gavin addresses in #4, as there seems to be a “softening” of Nicea 2 here, especially with the anathemas. I mean do you guys not think venerating Icons is required? That’s not how Nicea 2 reads.

[@patriciamathews5975]

It is your Face oh Lord, I seek .... Show us your Face. ..hide not Your Face from us ..... Multiple passages about seeking the image of God's Face. Christ left us his image for us, for now, the Shroud of Turin. (Peter & John took the shroud & the sudarium from the tomb.) 🙏

[@KathleenGuloy]

The critics cannot see the Church’s duty to enlighten the Word of God in times we live. The times that were pointed out were different from each other. I kiss my scapular, and my picture of Christ and yes an anathema if I was of idolatry.

[@emmanuelsolorzano24]

@The Catholic Brothers I appreciate the resonse to Gavin's original video. I come from a faith background that was especially suspicious of any religious images, and over the years I have become more ecumenically minded, understanding that different traditions approach questions of theology and worship with different presuppositions, frameworks, and concerns. First, let me summarize your argument as I comprehend it. Then, I'll ask a question. I find your response helpful: namely, that it is possible to see icon veneration as an accretion and at the same time as a valid cultic development reflecting the evolving emphasis on the incarnation. As I understand your argument, you are saying that this cultic development is especially understandable when taking into account the way that items used in liturgy were treated with respect -- a venaration that Christians distinguished from worship, but to which pagans seemed to be the same thing. Once theology dropped the emphasis on the incorporeal, invisible nature of God (which you explain as a Platonic emphasis), it focused on the doctrine of God's incarnation in Christ. From here, you argue, it was natural to create and see icons (which Christians in the past had viewed with suspicion due to a reliance on Rabbinic readings of Scripture) as a way of knowing and connecting to God -- first mentally and later physically. Once the presence of icons in churches intersected with the historic veneration of holy items, icon veneration resulted. And so, you explain Nicea 2 as a affirming a cultic practice rooted in apostolic theology, even if the apostles themselves never engaged in this practice. My main question is this: How do you read the passages on the Nehushtan and King Hezekiah's reforms? I'll quote the relevant passage here: [Hezekiah] did what was right in the sight of the Lord just as his ancestor David had done. He removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole. He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel; so that there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah after him, or among those who were before him. (2 Kings 18:3-5). In the video, it seems to me that you suggest Jesus criticizes the destruction of Nehushtan, as it was a symbol of his own salvific work. Do you think Jesus saw the Bronze Serpent as a symbol of himself and therefore would have approved of the offerings presented to it? Do you see the Gospel of John as being in tension with 2 Kings? In your view, is the imagery of the snake in the garden from Genesis 3 not a mirror of the Nehushtan in the temple the criticizes this cultic practice as illegitimate and dangerous? Thanks for your engagement in this discussion.

[@emmanuelsolorzano24]

I should also specify, I'm not equating icon veneration to the cult of the Bronze Snake. I am trying to understand your use of this example.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Hey Emmanuel, excellent comment. Thank you for this. I think you have largely captured the thesis of our video there (I would add and clarify a few things, but you definitely summarized it well). I think we’re moving from a historical question to a more personal, theological question. Which is fine, but I just want to be clear that what I am about to say is merely my own opinion as it has interfaced with (what I have read over the years) in OT texts and the surrounding scholarship. I’m open to correction. Daniel may even have his own disagreements with the below, so this is just my (Steven) personal reflections/considerations. The crux of what is going on in the Hezekiah incident, in my view, is the question of what had begun to be done with the bronze serpent in the midst of a host of pagan accretions (and what that actually meant in the ancient context). To worship something did not mean merely nodding towards it, cultically gazing at it, kissing it, bowing, or any outward gestures of piety divorced from a physical offering as a means of appeasement or satisfaction or festal communion. The crux of the matter stands on the act of bringing this sort of offering to the standard. (Augustine actually made the same point when referring to the Latria-dulia distinction, as it interfaced with items in the Christian cult). A venerative, cultic use of the bronze serpent apparently is what reigned supreme for the vast majority of Israel’s history, Scripturally speaking, given the silence about it in the texts apart from the Moses and Hezekiah incidents (God was perfectly willing to address all the *other* images, altars, the Asherah, and hosts of other abuses throughout the scriptural corpus.. why not this one if it was always happening?). So, cultic use of the bronze serpent does not appear to have been problematic to the mainstream cult of ancient Israel, and especially not to the peripheral cult(s) until, perhaps, something new had begun to take place. What I would argue is that Israelites eventually crossed a cultic line and brought the standard along with it, and began making sacrificial offerings to the standard, as they were making offerings to other images of gods in and around the Temple, and certainly on altars set on mounds. So the Lord was pleased *that the idolatry was swiftly dealt with.* That said, there is still certainly a tension between the original Solomonic cult and the emergent cult of the second Temple. The Johannine literature especially makes this clear, if the OT texts weren’t enough to do so. Two things can be true at once: (1) God was pleased that Hezekiah was swift to put down idolatry, and (2) the purging of the cult completely of all imagery (even imagery that God Himself had commanded to be made) was an over correction which contradicted the divinely instituted elements of the Solomonic cult. Christ’s disposition (as much as we can glean from the gospels and early apocalyptic writing) appears to have been the moderate stance in the first century (standing between that of the Essenes and that of the Sadducees)- that the mainstream cult of his day had represented an overcorrection in public ritual (an overcorrection that often robbed Israel of messianic symbols), a scandalous loosening of aspects of the moral Law (divorce law, for instance), accompanied by the introduction of novel rituals and restrictions in daily intercourse and on the Sabbath- all contra the Sadducees. But the Temple was not to be completely repudiated on account of this (contra the Essenes), b/c it was still the center of cultic life for the people of Israel and was therefore His “Father’s house.” But the Temple cult as constituted under Solomon was more conducive to messianic hopes and piety, and Christ’s imagery for the New Temple/Jerusalem throughout the NT is ostensibly framed in fulfilled, Solomonic terms and not in those of the Second Temple. In Johannine literature, an often overlooked, but persistent theme is that of restoration of one Solomonic element after another in the Temple of the new covenant (in fulfilled form- we see the restoration of the cherubim; the restoration of the stairs to the Holy of Holies; the lamp stands; the ark; etc). The bronze serpent, as prefigurement of Christ’s sacred cross, being one of these instances of restoration in Johannine literature. All of the imagery of Revelation is the imagery of the first Temple, not the second. That certainly means something, especially in the ears of the prevailing priesthood of the day. To us, who are 2,000 years removed from Herod’s (empty) Temple, it requires careful attention to catch onto Jesus’ constant references to the elements of Solomon’s Temple when speaking with the scribes and priests and to understand just how they would have reacted to that manner of speaking. They may have even immediately assumed that he was an Essene, and his relationship with John the Baptist would have done him few favors in that regard… No wonder both Jesus and the earliest disciples were often falsely accused of being enemies of the Temple! There’s more to say on this, but maybe this at least gives you, directionally, what I think about this issue. I would highly recommend that you listen to our episodes on “The Judaisms of Jesus” and especially the episode on “Jesus, John, and the Secrets of the Temple.” That may also help clarify our position on the “Temple tensions.” Thanks again for tuning in!

[@stephengriffin4612]

Hi guys, Great shows. Have you ever heard Dr. David Anders of EWTN on the veneration of relics in the early church? I believe it may have been the subject of his Ph. D. thesis. You should check it out. Also, it has been a number of years since I read an enlightening book on the esthetics of the Greek icon, written by a German scholar if I recall (the Germans wrote on everything). Can't remember his name. We, western Westerners, bring our own presuppositions to any number of things, including our understanding of the arts. Read somewhere that Asian artists are considered great if they can replicate the work of the master. Originality is secondary. Do you know the earliest appearance of Christian symbols or images on coins?

[@Vereglez-d4z]

Subscribed! 🔔❤

[@chriscarter1731]

Commenting on the 20:43 time stamp. Images go back to the early days, but they were decorative or didactic. You'll see loads of pictograms like anchors or doves in the catacombs or paintings of biblical scenes on sarcophagi or in house churches (like the one at Dura-Europos), but they lacked the veneration element. Based on the material and written evidence, icon veneration seems to be a later development. We can debate if it's a good or bad one, but it's likely anachronistic to place veneration in the ante-nicene church. To be fair and transparent, I'm Protestant (Anglican) so I do have a theological bias against icons (or maybe lack of exposure is more accurate). I appreciate the scholarship and evenhandedness you both bring to this discussion! It's encouraging to see kind and knowledgeable interlocutors!

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Listen to the whole episode.

[@andreaurelius45]

@Chris Carter in your old church windows you have icons. Icons are not artwork. They aren't primarily decorative. They are a thological statement. The Icon of the Theotokos and Jesus is a stark and overt proclamation of the Incarnation. Which many deny to this day. .. In this world of images, you WILL be looking at something. Icons serve a real and functional aspect of fundemental Christianity.

[@fantasia55]

Sola Scriptura is CLEARLY an accretion.

[@EmberBright2077]

Not from the Protestant perspective, in which it is a universal principle (so not invented but discovered), that appeals to the earliest sources.

[@fantasia55]

@EmberBright2077 Not only was Sola Scriptura not believed by anyone prior to the 16th century, it didn't even occur to anyone prior to the 16th century.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@fantasia55 Cool. That doesn't refute it as a universal principle.

[@fantasia55]

@EmberBright2077 Anyone can invent a new doctrine and proclaim it a universal principle.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@fantasia55 Yes they can

[@mattwebb563]

I am blown away at how we can say that Nicaea 2 was only anathematizing those who destroy or deface icons, when it is quite clearly anathematizing anyone who does not even “salute” them (whatever the word salute may mean here). this is a direct quote: “ We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.”

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

In this era, if one actively refrained from saluting the images, there were two conclusions that could be drawn from that disposition: (1) Their Chalcedonian Orthodoxy was questionable, and/or (2) they conflated the holy images with pagan idols and misapplied Scriptural bans on pagan idols to liturgical images of Christ and the saints, which was not only bad exegesis, but impious. Whether option 1, 2, or both together, to actively refrain from saluting the images was a clear indication that you were guilty of some heterodoxy. To salute the images was to pay to them the same outward gestures of social piety that one would pay towards the emperor or his image (which the *iconoclasts* themselves continued to do). This outraged the orthodox, and rightly so, that iconoclasts were willing to venerate the image of a temporal ruler like the emperor, but not pay the same level of honor to an image of the cosmic Emperor: Jesus Christ. The iconoclasts were so thoroughly wrong-headed and mixed up in this whole debate, but they were also impious, imitating Mohammedans by plastering over images of Christ and the saints in the churches which had been there since time immemorial. Our point was not that the anathemas could not be theologically applied by extension to Protestant iconoclasm, but that the anathemas themselves proceeded from an era and context which was markedly different than the context of the 16th century West, and we would do well to avoid anachronisms when we analyze the texts of the council. There are specifically 16th century anathemas issued against the reformers, and those should be treated on their own terms. Protestants need to situate themselves in the context of the actual 8th century debate (esp comparing the texts of Hieria and Nicaea 2) if they want to truly understand the debate and what the orthodox were protecting and not project their modern sensibilities and outrages into the the texts. And when we do this, slowly but surely, we can see that the party which produced the texts of Nicaea 2-over and against the party which produced the texts of the council of Hieria-was indeed preserving the perpetuation of apostolic faith and piety. The iconoclasts were introducing a novelty in the Christian cultus, not the orthodox. Never in the history of the Church up to that point had the She recommended plastering over sacred images or conflating sacred images with pagan idols.

[@alejandrocastellanosbarron8683]

What fragment of "The encarnation of the Word" (Saint Athsnatius), are you refering to?

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Hey Alejandro, could you be more specific? What part of our video are you referring to?

[@asgrey22]

@@TheCatholicBrothers around 1:37:15 I believe

[@kylesilva4063]

I think one issue here that I see and I’m halfway through the video at the moment. Is that in Nicea 2 there are very clear anathema’s to people against veneration to images. This means that if someone is convicted to not do so they will be looked at as an unfaithful follower for not bowing to an image. I feel like this is of a spirit of Nebuchadnezzar in the sense that what they have done is forcefully made a rule that should be left to the faith of the believer. Not only that but are adding a burden to the souls of the faithful that has no need to be pressed. You don’t judge faithfulness to Christ on whether or not someone venerates images or statues.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

We address the anathema objections somewhere in this video AND in the follow up video on Suan Sonna’s channel, so feel free to take a look at that.

[@matthewthompson1942]

So can faith be only attributed to the Holy Spirit? Is the assumption that we as believers have no ability to believe on our own accord? Does having faith only mean mere acknowledgement of God or that there’s a reason why we, as Christians, choose God over the world and having an understanding of why? Is idolatry only defined in the first and second commandments or does God further define it by his reaction to the Israelites committing idolatry? If the assumption is that we can ask those in Heaven to pray for us, why can’t the ones already in Heaven ask us to pray for them? Is the Ark of the Covenant an image of God or the throne of God? Can man make an eikon or only an eidolon? If we can make an eikon, who considers that eikon to be one, or deem it as holy? Can man define anything in the world as holy or can only God define anything as holy? Does God forbid us to use reasoning to discern what is acceptable and what is not, as a Christian? I pray these questions are not taken as confrontational and that I’ve expressed them correctly in a manner that is palatable. I hope to come up with more questions for all in the future. Even though I’m nondenominational, may God bless you all and your loved ones.

[@Bbos2383]

Key phrase in this video: "yes the early church is aniconic."

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

That would be a key phrase for those who are not looking to follow the argument. For those who are actually following the argument, it would be the start of a longer sentence: “yes the early church is aniconic, but on what grounds?”

[@HannahClapham]

@TheCatholicBrothers. Most of this video was presented as if the contention nowadays was between a docile Christian use of representational art and an historic, extremist factional iconoclasm. Robin Jensen wrote of the church going from idol to icon, but there is also the very real progress of Christian worship from icon to idol, as you yourselves documented with the touring Lady of Fatima story. You said, “If eating meat causes my brother to fall, then I’ll never eat meat again.” Should I hold you to that? Because if I did, you’d immediately cease venerating icons! Their misuse is ubiquitous in the Church! Where I’m at, Catholics will buy small statues of St. Joseph and bury him upside down in their yard to help their house sell. If it sells, they dig him up and proudly display him in their new house! Gavin has no problem with representational art in worship. His dad is an Anglican, for goodness’ sake! There is a difference, though, between honoring a deceased love one by visiting their grave…and divvying up their bones to act as lucky charms. Icon and relic veneration became (and still often is) incredibly superstitious and magical…and magic and superstition are, when it comes right down to it, basically demonic. Nehushtan, the bronze serpent set up by Moses, was torn down by Hezekiah…not because of some newfound aniconism…but because the people were burning incense to it.

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

Were the Israelites using Elijah's bones as lucky charms? How about the New Testament followers with Paul's clothing?

[@Mr.Anglo1095]

Can someone help me understand what they mean by cult in the context they’re using it?

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

a system of religious practices, veneration, and sets of devotions directed toward a particular figure or object

[@donhaddix3770]

icons are idols. bowng, praying etc to them is worship.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

lol

[@EmberBright2077]

If I may, multiple times you refer to "the earliest churches having images" and similar language, which implies such was common practice. I am only aware of a single building that represents this reference. Is there more evidence to make the claim more credible?

[@jdlee1972]

Everytime I see a Gavin Ortlund video come out and the responses. It appears to me that in a charitable light, he is not covering the bases thoroughly to provide a balanced and honest view. If taken uncharitably, he is downright dishonest and out to deceive and mislead.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

I think he is genuinely trying to catechize his fellows in an amount of time that modern attention spans will allow (and which will be conducive to the most views on YT), which means that, of necessity, he has to omit quite a bit and stick to the basics. He’s filling a much needed apologetic void in modern Protestantism; he is both full of conviction and well-read in scholarship. So, I appreciate his POV. We have the luxury of not being pastors, so we can make two hour videos hitting every point if we darn well please lol. That’s my take, anyway. He seems like a good guy to me.

[@1984SheepDog]

Does N787 actually claim that icon veneration was an apostolic practice?

[@chiefamongsinners16]

Decre of the Seventh Ecumenical Council To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations. 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 Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all your heart. The Lord has taken away from you the oppression of your adversaries; you are redeemed from the hand of your enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of you; you shall not see evil any more, and peace be unto you forever.

[@1984SheepDog]

@Daniel Lerma tbh I don't see any claim in that passage that says that the apostles practiced icon veneration, just that pictoral representation is an ecclesiastical tradition that they recieved.

[@chiefamongsinners16]

@@1984SheepDog Okay

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@1984SheepDog with all the appeals the council makes to the traditions it has “received” to make its argument for icons and their veneration, it’s difficult to see how this doesn’t include veneration itself. Notice, they don’t explicitly suggest anything that sounds like doctrinal development, ie “because of earlier tradition we therefore reason that veneration is (now) permissible”. They don’t really say that. What they make instead is an appeal to what has been handed to them. They even condemn innovation. So it would be odd that in the middle of all that language they are implicitly granting veneration is in fact not passed down, not apostolic, and is actually an innovation, but of an appropriate kind like this channel is asserting. That seems like a bunch of assumptions to read into such thundering appeals to prior tradition that has been handed on to them.

[@1984SheepDog]

@Theosophical Wanderings the way I read it is that they do view icon veneration as something they received, just not from the apostles. I could be wrong, and if I am I don't think that N787 is proven wrong at all, but I would like to see where the "scholarly concesus" says that the council was wrong on the historical facts about icon veneration.

[@macrofuture]

Good things to learn here but I still dont think the arguments are strong...

[@mactek6033]

We are to worship God in spirit and truth. Graven images of God are strictly forbidden. If you think that Christian icons are harmless fun, then I present the crying Mary statue "miracle." This nonsense is where humans instinctively take this. They reduce God to superstition. Tribal peoples that come from a tradition of animalism will use these graven accoutrements to mix in their old beliefs. Habitual traditions are very difficult to break.

[@Harmytwo]

Well, I don't understand what do you have against saying it's accreation. You are saying, oh it is accretion, but you didn't know, about the context. But yeah it's accreation.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@Harmytwo no, we’re saying it’s a natural, cultic development of Christian theology rather than a foreign, unnatural accretion.

[@Harmytwo]

I am very thankful for your immediate response. Much appreciated. Ok, but still development. I don't want to be like it must be against God, but I believe, that Israel had too normal cultic development. But God called it idolatry. It's not like, I cannot understand, that God would reveal himself even through icons. On the other hand. I am with Ortlund about this, what he mainly said was, that we shouldn't under considerate (I am not native speaker), that with Israel it seemed like the same and that church is still tempted by the devil into idolatry. Church in our eyes isn't something, that can't do anything wrong. Which can be seen in medieval sentences against anyone, who said that church isn't infallible. So the question is, when it has developed is it possible, it was wrong?

[@mattwebb563]

Number 2) I don’t think flipping the Eucharist and Relics back on Gavin is a fair way to handle this conversation. Gavin is a Protestant so of course he does not agree with the Father’s in total on these things. His critique of veneration of icons is not from a place of agreeing with the iconoclasts, but rather to show that catholic and orthodox claims of carrying the torch of the apostolic deposit fall flat in this way. The protestant claim does not rest on the words of the fathers, but often times the catholic and orthodox churches speak in such a way that their claims do rest on the fathers as they claim to be the church once and for all preserving the apostolic deposit. So, of course, a protestant would not support these other claims of the fathers, the whole critique is not about agreeing with the fathers from a protestant perspective, but rather showing at the catholic and orthodox traditions, are not simply a preservation of the apostolic deposit.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

But if Gavin is trying to show us that Catholicism and Orthodoxy *have not* preserved the apostolic faith and tradition, doesn’t that imply that someone else has preserved it (ie: *his* tradition)? If not, then what is this debate even about? Has the tradition of the apostles disappeared from the earth or has someone kept it? That’s why the point about the other aspects of the Catholic/Orthodox cultus *is* fair, relevant, and salient to the conversation. His claim is that this one, single issue is enough to make a person Protestant. Well, I would say, that even if anyone was to grant that, on this single issue, the Church got it wrong, that still wouldn’t come close to justifying becoming Protestant because the Church at least still has the other 99% right and Gavin’s side of the Christian divide has 99% of apostolic tradition wrong. So, it would still be more logical to remain with 99% of the apostolic tradition of worship than to leave for only 1% of it.

[@HannahClapham]

@@TheCatholicBrothers. But that’s simply not true. Your Magisterium claims total infallibility on things like this. One official error negates the whole shebang and throws you onto the reformable side of the bus. In other words, it makes Catholicism Protestant.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@HannahClapham see above comment again..

[@HannahClapham]

@@TheCatholicBrothers. I did read everything, and I think I was clear as to which portion of it I was commenting on. But I’ll expand and clarify for you. The initial comment was a bit murky, I think, but decipherable nonetheless. Gavin listens to what the fathers have to say, but is not bound by them. His conscience is captive to the Word of God…and its version of the Apostolic Deposit. Added to this, of course, is anything that can be deduced “by good and necessary” consequence. (The Trinity. The Canon. Proper Christology.) In this sense, Protestantism HAS preserved 100% of the Apostolic Tradition concerning worship…at least 100% of what Christ wanted preserved. For the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition is just a fancy term for saying that much of what the Church has preserved in its ritual and liturgical practices (and to a lesser extent, in its theological formulations) derive from Apostolic oral tradition. Simply because it has been preserved. No actual words of the Apostles’ verbal teachings have been preserved for us as far as I am aware. So Sacred Tradition is vague and untrustworthy evidence unless one subscribes to the authority of the Magisterium. (It is tradition of some sort, of course, but from how far back?) For some reason, nothing verbatim was ever considered important enough to write down, unlike the Mishnah. Are you actually saying that official cultic practices are not considered infallibly Apostolic? That 99% accuracy is more than fine? In philosophy, one item of dysteleological surd disproves divine teleology, does it not? One percent of error erases one’s claim of infallibility. Erick Ybarra has said that if Vigilius’ reversal on The Three Chapters was not coerced AND was on a significant faith and morals matter (rather than on what appears to be miscommunication involving mistranslation), he would quit Catholicism.

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@@HannahClapham Which form of protestantism has preserved 100% of the Apostolic tradition, and is it just those three doctrines, Trinity, Canon, and proper Christology?

[@macrofuture]

The line thats being drawn between the doctrinal developments and the cultic practices just doesn't follow. Jesus came in the flesh therefore you must kiss these creepy pictures which in no way resemble the incarnate risen christ....

[@MereTheology]

Here beacuse caffeinated catholic mentioned this as the best response. Listening to your guys's reaction it seems (honestly) that you sre leveling claims against gavin that you are doing yourself. I heard "clearly this tradition went back to the apostles" why is it clear and where is the evidence? Not seen any use of images in the first 300 years. "Nicea 2 isnt against your friendly protedtant paster" it ansthsmstizes anyone who even disagrees with them. Even explicity using holy scrupture as an argument it anesthetizes them. It ansthemtizes you for not saluting images. Etc. Idk how you read that snd then say "its only against those tarrying down idols" that would seem like you are reading into the council what you want hear. Which is what tou leveled against gavin. Separating doctrinal development issues from cultic worship development doesnt fix the issue. It seems kinda spurious to suggest that there was doctrinal development that affected the cultic worship so since icons were cuktic worship it wasnt doctrinal development? That was confusing and honestly just seems like a way to cinfuse the argument and avoid the issues. Its a doctrinal development when you dont have something and then you do and then you anathametize those that even think differently. Which includes most of the church fathers to this point.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Did you listen from start to finish? Once you do, most of these follow up questions you’re posing were also treated in our follow up episode to this one on Intellectual Catholicism with Suan Sonna (we have that under “interviews” in our playlists)

[@philoalethia]

While I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your presentation, the difficulty is that you've confused a descriptive question for a normative one (it is very easy to do). Let me offer a modern example to demonstrate the problem. A contemporary person might argue that licenses should be required to do any work on your house (or any work whatsoever). Someone might push back and say that such a requirement violates fundamental freedoms regarding controlling one's own property. Proponents could easily retort, "Well, we already require licenses for these 10,000 other things, therefore it can't be wrong in itself. And it should be done because we can't have you later selling a home to someone else where work was done that might not be proper...." You are basically saying that Nicaea II made the same argument. Specifically, the question wasn't whether veneration was acceptable. Rather, you said that the question was whether Christians could/should venerate icons of Christ in the same way that they already venerate relics and other holy or consecrated objects. We already venerate things: the question is whether we should (or shouldn't) venerate these other things, too. While that might be a question burbling under the recorded texts from Nicaea II, that isn't really the fundamental question. The fundamental question is whether we should be venerating (i.e., prostrating or bowing before, kissing, praying to, etc.) ANYTHING except God. The general answer from both Scripture and the earliest Christian examples seems to be no. I don't think that your assertion holds that N2 is a question of praxis and not doxis. Praxis is an application of doxis. Any council that prescribes (or proscribes) praxis is prescribing doxis, as well. If doxis can change, we have to ask in what way. THIS change is clearly a reversal of the earliest witnesses, which can easily happen inch by inch over years, decades, or centuries. But this begs the question whether the original position was wrong, the current position is wrong, or it is a cultural, relative matter that can rightly change over time or with cultural time and place (much as the way that the meanings of words and gestures changes). Now, you did well by bringing up this or that person who says that X (i.e., veneration) is fine. But the question isn't whether someone (even a saint) says X is moral. The question is whether X is moral. Unfortunately, the habitual practice of apologists defending their own religions is to cherry pick sources who affirm X without ever really asking whether X is moral in the first place. If we go looking, we can find anyone who is for or against ANY position. I will grant that it is a difficult distinction to maintain and much more difficult to evaluate. Further, we have a uniform Judeo-Christian commandment that we are not to make ANY image of the true God. Now, it is sensible to assert that images of Christ are sensible (no pun intended), but there is even a great danger of confusion if veneration is offered there, some of which comes up in N2. The early Church approach appears to have been that images are allowable, and that honor may be shown (e.g., flowers or candles place before it), but that this is a dangerous fire and the temptation toward veneration must be resisted. If there is nothing immoral in NOT having images and there is persistent risk in having images, then the prudent path seems rather clear. If the assertion is going to be made that "yes, the veneration of icons is a development... and a good one," then that argument needs to be made, not merely asserted and observed. Again, it comes down to descriptive versus normative claims. From a merely descriptive perspective, you've made an excellent presentation. From a normative one, that isn't quite so clear. Finally, someone else's over-reaction doesn't necessarily justify my action or a new doctrine. For example, the iconoclasts destroying images doesn't justify the veneration of images. "There are only two sides." Beware the fallacy of the false dichotomy. You mentioned relics, and present this as justification for veneration of images. This seems extremely confused. If even the angels and apostles asserted clearly that veneration of them while living was wrong, then it follows that veneration of the dead, parts of the dead, places of the dead, or merely images thereof is a problem. You seem as well to extend veneration for the Eucharist to veneration of icons. Again, this is just confused. Perhaps I am an unwitting hypocrite here. If you come to my own chapel (where I am a pastor), you will find dozens of icons, candles, and sculptures of Christ, the Cross, the Holy Family (during Advent), etc. The difference is that we ever only genuflect, prostrate, or kneel to Christ present in the Eucharist. It seems to me that this is consistent with the early Church example, but I am open to other ideas. However, you will also see me bow to and kiss the altar (because it is where the Eucharist comes to be) and kiss the Book of the Gospels (as the Word of God). I suppose these acts could be criticized, and I will think about them. Very much enjoyed your discussion! :)

[@illbeuroni-chan2218]

In trying to defend Nicea 2 you are anathemtized by it. Good job.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Explain

[@illbeuroni-chan2218]

@@TheCatholicBrothers The council literally states that those who deny the veneration of icons is apostolic is anathema

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Paste here the part of the council that you are invoking

[@illbeuroni-chan2218]

@The Catholic Brothers "This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which has made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honorable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema."

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@illbeuroni-chan2218 Friend, I encourage you to watch the last half of our episode where we read and exposit the text of the Council after a very detailed recounting of the historical context that leads up to the document. This anathema is placed at the end of the text (a text which had carefully distinguished between the production of images, *which was apostolic,* and the veneration of them, which was considered to be *of the Holy Spirit* in light of the previous six councils). So, yes, *the iconoclasts of the 8th century* were anathematized here, unless they repented (which some did at the council itself). If you, as a Protestant, take issue with sacred images and outward gestures of respect toward them, you will want to focus more on the council of Trent’s statements on sacred images, and leave the council of Nicaea 2 within the context that it actually stands, some 750 years prior to the Protestant reformation in the west. Protestants weren’t anathematized at Nicaea 2.