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

@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

@@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.

🔥

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

@@veritascaritas625What kinds of heresy?

Ybarra stamped.

The great fast begins soon

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

Why?

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.

Welcome to the jungle!

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.

​@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.

@@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.

@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.

@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

@YAJUNYUAN glad I’m now on your radar.

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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

@@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.

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.

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

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

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.

Great comment! Welcome aboard

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)

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!

@@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 🙂

@@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.

Which Church Fathers would support Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate?

@@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.

If you say so, it must be true

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

@@TheCatholicBrothers around 1:37:15 I believe

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

@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

@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

@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

@YAJUN YUAN so Jesus lied? The Apostles lied?

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.” 😉

@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.

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

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?”

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@@1984SheepDog Okay

@@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.

@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.

Listen to the whole episode.

@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.

lol

@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.

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.

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

@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.

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

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

@@fantasia55 Yes they can

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)

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.

@@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.

@@HannahClapham see above comment again..

@@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.

Explain

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

Paste here the part of the council that you are invoking

@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."

@@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.