In case anyone is wondering, I do not believe that Gavin's quotes are a comprehensive and nuanced presentation of Christian history pre-Nicaea II. This presentation used his quotes as a means of helping people map a response to Gavin. In other words, this presentation is for clarity on the issues at hand. I hope to one day share what I think is a more complete history. I honestly don't believe, for example, that there was ever a time when having images in churches was universally condemned. The early voices against images seem to be vocal minorities in response to a robust and existing phenomenon.
Did the Appostles teach that it is necessary to venerate images? If they did not then why is it necessary now? If you say it's because they just did it but yet can't find evidence of this from the Appostles then it is an accretion
Protestant here. Found this response via Gavin’s recommendation in his latest reply to Horn and Akin’s rebuttal video. This was a WAY more coherent response than Horn and Akin’s, and I think a big part of that is your tone. As many have noted, Akin’s smugness was such a turnoff to Protestants that it was very difficult to listen charitably to what he was trying to articulate. Thank you for this video!
I'm actually thankful for Gavins attack, I'm in RCIA without this debate I don't think k i would've learned so much about icon veneration. I'm definitely way more comfortable with the doctrine now coming from calvinism into the true church. Great response suan, loved the deep dive into development.
@harleymann2086 Amen to that brother! Another convert like me.... i spent yesrs trying to understand calvinist doctrines and just couldnt get there but theybseemed to shred the other denominations in debates till i seen them run into catholics. I was stunned.... truth be told even when I was a protestant there were things that I believed that were outside of my theology. I believed in true presence, confession, a form of purgatory, I kissed the cross and bowed to it.... showing veneration and worship through images and objects, and I believed the next time Jesus comes back it's the last time. Once you start realizing most of the things protestants think we believe are myths it's like a chain reaction. I do appreciate your comment it's very true that protestants keep us on our toes and prevent us from getting too sloppy with scripture. I just hope were influencing them in the same way. I can't tell you how many people breeze over things that scream catholic doctrine in scripture. I know pastors that would preach all day against homosexuality while their second or third wives are nodding their heads and saying amen. Things like that break my heart
after watching multiple times gavin’s and loftons and trent’s videos, I think this is the clearest response, and the only one that really answers gavin’s objections satisfactorily thank you, i really struggle with this issue
At 43:43, I realized that my comments need clarification. I believe that Mary would receive this prayer through Christ's power over heaven and earth and her Son would ultimately bring it to the Father. I'm being very specific here, because I believe it is God the Son who mediates between man and God the Father over something like "mercy" and "forgiveness". She would lovingly pass along this request of mine to the One who pleads my cause before the Father (1 John 2:1). I am simply glad that her motherly intercession was in the process. She would pray/speak to God (the Son) and God (the Father) would receive it. I think this is also the best way to understand the quote at the end: the saints, who have experienced Theosis/Christosis, bring my prayer to God and it is God the Son who pleads my case to the Father. Christ is absolutely essential in this process, because the saint on their own has no "pleading" power before The Father. That's the power of the Son.
Thank you for the concise, non-inflammatory, emotionally neutral, academic response. I wish Trent and Jimmy would take more of this approach, addressing Gavin using sound argument rather than resorting to personal critiques, “he doesn’t seem to understand x y and z” and “he’s a fundamentalist”, and so on.
God bless you, Suan, for this very clear explanation of doctrinal development that didn’t feel weaselly or sloppy. A Protestant friend of mine sent me Gavin’s video, and I was a bit perturbed by it, even though I sensed intuitively as a Catholic that he was missing some context that I simply “feel” after a lifetime of living within it. I often find myself expressing something to the effect of what you’ve done here, reminding people outside that they can’t apply their paradigm to Catholic theology and expect it to make sense and that Catholicism (much like our Eastern brethren are always saying as well) is something that has to be experienced- not simply thought about- to comprehend. Your explanation of the communion of saints as being part of the family of God brought tears to my eyes since it resonated with that deeper truth I’ve experienced but is hard to convey to those who haven’t yet. I started this comment by saying “God bless you” for your eloquent explanation, but in keeping with the theme of this video, I also have to say God bless the commenter on Gavin’s video who pointed me to you, just as we say to our brothers and sisters the saints who do the same for us with regards to Christ.
Well this was well laid out, nice job touching on important aspects of development & veneration, helpful & charitable at that. No matter the objections, as Catholics we know where the beauty & the fullness of the holy faith resides
8:00 Suan, God bless you. This is suuuuuuch a good point!! I think this is often why it’s so difficult for people to see the holes in Gavin’s arguments!
Thank you for this video brother Suan. This was a great sequel to Jimmy and Trent's response. I got to learn a lot of things new things in this video that I never heard or even consider before.
Thank you very much for such a charitable and balanced presentation. I just watched a video of Jordan B. Cooper where he tries to frame that Newman is basically an escape hatch which is used by Catholics to argue their way out of every contradiction that is to be found. But I thought that you brought a clear image showing that it isn't a far-fetched strange thing. I also loved the end, concerning our brothers and sisters in Christ in heaven, sometimes we get all lost in the technical stuff, and then forget to be happy en joyful about things like the communion of saints. This amazing family we have alive and well in heaven, I can't wait to finally meet them their. God willing! May God bless and guide you Suan!
As a Protestant who loves both of your channels, and watches pretty regularly, I can't help but feel like despite the zealous arguments on both sides, I am nonetheless greatful that Christians today still feel passionately about the ways of showing proper reverence to God. Even Jimmy Akin acknowledges that this is a fairly minor issue (especially in the Western Church) and it is good to see Christians zealous over issues of worship, without using real vitriol and violence.
it's not minor if it is anathema to disagree with the Catholic Church. Grace and Peace to you. Dogmas and anathemas are not helpful where they aren't warranted.
@@justinfoard3322 I submit to the word of God, therefore I cannot follow someone who bows to pagan Gods... Exodus 23:24. I submit to God. The ultimately authority, not man. Your pope has violated God's command in Exodus, bowing to pagan Gods. Also, why would I waste one breath pleading to other humans when I have access directly to the father? Grace and Peace to you!
Beautifully stated and respectfully presented. I agree with others who have said this response was the easiest to follow and really answers Dr. Ortlund’s concerns.
Excellent video Suan! As an Evangelical Protestant who is working through various issues in regards to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy I found your arguments very helpful. I watched through both your video and Gavin's ( Haven't watched Trent and Jimmy's yet, but probably will soon).
Purely scholarly...great work, keep it up.....Kudos for the response to Jimmy and Horn, glad it came first. Very necessary for Gavin's protestant apologetics disguised as scholarship engagement
The incarnation means that God is saving creation THROUGH CREATION-uniting it to Himself. No one and no thing is worthy of veneration. God makes us venerable. God makes us worthy. Suan is starting to grasp the magnitude of the incarnation. Well done!
thank you. you made an excellent case showing there was a legitimate doctrinal developement through those centuries making it acceptable for us Catholics while being fair to protestants. nice job!.
Orthodox here--I listened to Pageau's video on iconography last week (or the week before, don't remember), and liked it quite a lot. He brought it to a different mode of conversation that pointed to how icons reflect the total change in humanity's relationship with God pre and post incarnation. Listened to this just a little bit and I get the sense that you're approaching this correctly insofar as a scholarly approach and analysis goes. Different angle but good stuff man.
I really enjoyed your video Suan. As someone who explored the Eastern Orthodox route, and carefully listened to Gavin Ortlund’s arguments, and who is now a Protestant (LCMS Lutheran), I can honestly say you make some excellent and compelling points. I tend to err on the side of affirming icons in church, and cautiously affirming the veneration thereof. You said many times “we can”…. “Can”. I don’t dispute that we Christian’s “can” use sacred images. Possibly even venerate them. However, my problem rests (and I know Gavin has the same concerns) in the anathematizing of persons who don’t venerate icons, per the words of the 7th ecumenical council. I can’t escape the implications of that claim. And I can’t affirm that failing to venerate an icon someone threatens one’s salvation. In the words of the bishops, to be anathema is “nothing less than being cut off from God.” I begged the priests in the EO church I was visiting to explain this to me and how it is consistent with the fundamental basis and demands of the Gospel but no one could give me an answer. I wish you had addressed this issue in your video. I believe this issue is even more problematic than the question of the validity of icons (in church, being venerated). I wish someone could offer a legitimate explanation of the anathemas and how to reconcile it with the basis of salvation.
The "back to the beginning" principle, good move! It makes sense given Paul's use of the same, as you pointed out. If one subscribed to sola scriptura in the time of Paul, one would have necessarily agreed with the judaisers. They had the much more straightforward reading of scripture on their side in their belief that gentile converts had to become Jewish. But Christ revealed something that seemed, at first glance, counter to scripture. Just like Nicea II revealed (or rather clarified) something that, at first glance, seems counter to apostolic tradition. And Christ gave authority to bind and loose to his Church.
Id say what we inherited from the fathers and early church wasn't no Icons no Images, but the idea that idolatry was wrong. What exactly was and wasn't idolatry needed to be pieced together as things such as the incarnation were understood.
Suan is darn right. Veneration of Saints ---- > honored to relics of saint -----> veneration of relics ----> honor of images ----> veneration of images.
this was a great video! love your points. My husband and I are converts from protestantism as well & I went to Kstate also :) Keep up the good work, God bless!
Protestant here. You have consistently in my opinion given the best arguments for Catholicism out there, and this was no different. This response actually gives me something to think about. After Horn/Akin's video, I was just disappointed. I was like "if this is the best the Catholics have on this position, I'll be a convicted Protestant for life." Your response is actually thought provoking for me. There are a couple points you made I disagree with, but in general, this is a much more satisfying response to hear from the other side.
If you want the best argument for Catholicism, check out a documentary called Protestantism's Big Justification Lie. The argument in that video is irrefutable.
We don't have access to Jesus through Mary and the Saints. The opposite is true. We have access to Mary and the Saints through Jesus Christ. We have access to a whole family in heaven and on earth. That's the communion of Saints. The triune God is inherently communitarian, not an individualist.
I find it REALLY telling that a genuinely intelligent Protestant Doctor had to sink to mere worry and moral panic to justify his position by the end. I don't know if you watched the whole thing, but by the end he literally was saying: "I don't know if it's worth the risk to bow and venerate statues, even if it isn't worship, who knows when you'll cross that line?" It was PURE Puritanism with nothing else underpinning it. If you work off the basis that venerating icons won't lead to idolatry, then Gavin has literally no argument.
My points: - Visual representations help a lot in these discussions. We could sure use more of those, and of somehow modeling the discussion towards a more comprehensible form, rather than just people talking for hours! - Suan makes a good case for veneration but what about intercession? I get celebrating the sanctification/martyrdom of a Christian and honoring their life/teaching/sacrifice, but how does one justify them praying on your behalf for God to be merciful, or to somehow helps towards God granting salvation? Didn't God already do that? Isn't it enough that Jesus died on the cross and paid for our sins? There's only so much one can cover in the video, and I'm asking this questions should there be a follow-up. I'm very thankful for such videos. God bless!
My takeaway is well summed up by your final slide: this debate is secondary to the one about the infallibility of the Magisterium and the possibility of a biblical theology of icon veneration. I am *very* interested in any and all resources on, particularly, the latter, if you or anyone has any tips.
This was a really good response, thank you. Having said that, I think the concern that Gavin had that practical Catholicism seems to idolise Mary. This is real. I just met a young man who entered RCIA very devoted to Mary because of the influence of his mom, but doesn't think Jesus existed. We have Catholics who, in their personal devotion pray the Rosary but don't read Scripture or know how to pray directly to the Father. I'm also concerned about trajectories that might lead us completely out. Here I'm thinking if German bishops see themselves as the next step in a trajectory by accepting LGBTQ marriages. Satan knows he won't be able to make us apostasise overnight but by little changes over time
It also seems there is a point to be made that the opposite can be done. You can dishonor through an image. Didn't many people apostasize by stepping on an image of Christ? Can't we relate to a human experience of ripping or burning a picture of someone who has betrayed us? I'm just saying that it seems this idea is a truth that we experience day to day. People tearing down statues, that invoke feelings of betrayal or injustice for them... We honor and dishonor icons all the time.
This quote is taken from St John of Damascus' APOLOGIA OF ST JOHN DAMASCENE AGAINST THOSE WHO DECRY HOLY IMAGES. *St Athanasius* from the Hundred Chapters addressed to Antiochus, the Prefect, according to Question and Answer.--Chap. xxxviii. Answer.-We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not [121] because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made. If it can be proven _beyond all _*_reasonable doubt_*_ that_ this quote is from St Athanasius, then Gavin is a dead duck. Because: If St Athanasius, the great defender of the Trinity, does not represent true christian doctrine, then who does?
Another point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is... who would the apostles have even made icons in the first place? It makes perfect sense that this wasn't an apostolic tradition because apart from Jesus and Mary they basically had no one to venerate.
I don't know why Catholics are falling for Gavin's videos without questioning or engaging their content in Gavin's comment section. They just assume that it s all true , then they thank Gavin and start panicking. Is it Gavin's external niceties and charitable tone that beguile them ? Charity in these oecumenical dialogues is only the minimum (though important) prerequisite, get to the bottom of his content and stop that childish bilievism . Thanks Suan for the video!
Only low information Catholics are falling for it unfortunately they are out there and have always been easy pickings for evangelicals. The better informed listened to Akin and Trent and now Suan for the reasons that it is a legitimate development in church history.
@@catkat740 These so called Catholics seem to want an excuse to get of the Catholic Church and Gavin gave them the get out of Catholic Card. Now will these same people give Akin and Swan the time of day to present their case to remain in the church. Highly unlikely a person so willing to give up their belief system in an hour long you tube show doesn’t want to do the research as they already had one foot out and was looking for any excuse to move the other foot.
Great video brother. It seems to me that Gavin is presupposing that icons must be settled in first couple centuries. The problem with that is virtually no Christian doctrine would pass this test. It took hundreds of years before the Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, the Canon and many other issues would be settled.
I wonder if there is a Catholic phenomenon of spiritual experiences in which laity swear an icon nods back or acknowledges the bow. That for a brief moment the saint is there saying "yes you are my brother"
If Gavin was right. This shows gradual development. But I think there was images used in worship in Christianity from the very beginning: -Eusebius of Caserea's Church History Book XII, Chapter 18 in the most acceptable source writes it was there from the beginning with the bleeding women statues and the gentiles customary of images. (he doesn't call it wrong either.) - And I do believe the tradition of St. Luke of the paintings and images he made - I do believe the Armenian Apostolic Church tradition of Apostle Bartholemew hanging up the portrait of Mary in the first church in Armenia - Further I do believe the miraculous image in Our Lady of Guadalupe was made by God
What’s interesting is that few Catholics I know has ever venerated a image. I love icons and Christian art but I don’t think I have ever venerated a image. I think it’s a beautiful teaching but think most average Catholics don’t practice this. I have met Catholics that never prayed the Rosary or the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.
Nothing wrong with that, i guess, as long as these Catholics are practicing their faith and assent to the teachings of the Church. In matters of personal devotion, the rosary, chaplet, and icon veneration aren't really required by the Church or even the Latin Rite, but rejecting the practice as a Protestant does, will bring the Catholic to guilt of sin.
Honest question, because I find this comment perhaps misleading, unintentionally so I am sure. When you say you never venerated art, do you mean you have never prayed to the image or in its presence? So do you not pray when you see images of the saints and God? How about when the crucifix is right in front of you? I think people confuse not kissing and prostrating, in the eastern (and correct) mold, as no veneration period, which I don't think is actually correct. Or at least I hope not!
I dont know about you but I have seen plenty of catholics including me praying the rosary or divine mercy in front of their images. that is part of venerating icons/saints. you can say it is not common to see kisses of images in churches but I would say we do that in our own homes. Keep in mind Latin America have shown of influx of evangelical pentecostal churches constantly accusing catholics of idolatry.
How do you reconcile your doctrinal development views with “The Oath” from 1910 specifically “the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport” this quote from Pope Pius doesn’t sound like a polaroid to me.
Suan, your assumption of Gavin’s motivations are wrong. His primary objective is not to determine whether icon veneration is wrong. He believes it to be wrong based in his interpretation of Scripture. His main objective is to keep Christians Protestant, and for him, the best way to do this is to discredit the Catholic Church and its system of development. If he can prove that the Catholic Church has erred, then that invalidates the Church’s authority to outline doctrine.
But the problem is that Gavin just used the Church Fathers as a weapon to be used. For example, Gavin argues that Hieria was an ecumenical council, despite the fact that theology of Hieria actually undermines the dogmas at the Council of Ephesus, specifically over the issue that Hieria thinks that the only icon worth venerating is the Eucharist. That’s extremely problematic as it goes against Ephesus where it’s stated that the normative christological theology is St. Cyril’s letters against Nestorius. Wherein St. Cyril says that the Eucharist is not an icon of Christ but is the very flesh and blood of Christ and so consequently can not be venerated but rather worshipped.
There were several points in the video where you stated what Gavin believed and I'm not sure he really believes things that way, one instance was saying "Gavin accepts only the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith." (I don't think that's quite accurate of sola scriptura or Gavin's view) And there were several other places where I found myself wondering "does Ortlund really believe that?" note: I have watched quite a bit of his stuff.
Looking back, I think I recall something like this. Could you remind me again where Gavin said this? Something like the original quote appears to be St. Athanasius in “Against the Arians” 3.23.5. However, St. Basil does talk about in “On the Holy Spirit” of honor from the image going to the prototype.
It’s not misattributed because in how Nicaea II uses it, they point out that St. Basil the Great’s quotes on image and prototype can be extended incarnationally. St. Cyril uses the same language when debating nestorius over wether or not the Eucharist can be merely venerated or worshiped.
15:43 Clement of Alexandria already accepted some images/symbols that would be against the 2nd commandment, like the Shepherd, or the Dove (a manifestation of God the Spirit). And he says that an Anchor and a Boat would bring you the memory of the Apostles...we already have a symbol > reality relation here. Tertullian (already a heretic) is a hostile witness to the image of the Shepherd being carved in the most sacred object of the Church (Eucharistic Chalice), the thing were according to Paul we have communion to God. Also, Elvira is probably a forgerie (but they ignore as always, they just want to point the iconodule forgerie) but the canon 8 of Antioch was deemed authentic even by hostile protestant scholars (they just interpret in an spiritual way).
Sola Scriptura certainly adds to the talking past each other. I think also what contributes is how Ratzinger describes Councils not as nourishment for the faith, but medicinal. It seems like Dr. Ortlund spends a lot of time looking at Councils (Nicea II, Florence, Trent, etc) and this influences how he understands the Church as a whole, which ends up being a distortion.
@@pigetstuck Really? Why? People bow to other people in the bible. I'm sure you know the verses where this happens, right? It would be too embarassing if you do not.
@@namapalsu2364 the Paul of the new testament would pick me up and say that he was a man just like any other and instruct me to worship Christ... that is what he and the apostles did... they were people just like you or me
And what about in the New Testament.. Peters shadow or Pauls handkerchief? I know these aren't images, but its the idea, that people may be holding a handkerchief up as a holy item, not to be worshiped, but as a conduit? I maybe have this all wrong, but its what comes to mind.. Maybe Suan could flesh this out and help me clarify what I am thinking..lol
47:20 is the main point, but the challenging thing is that this is precisely where protestants not just differ but are inconsistent (if not unfair in their rash criticism of Catholics and Orthodox calling it "concern").... they both affirm that and reject the same. And for me, that is the annoying part.... Great video...
hey, at 19:47, you are saying images and veneration are developing as time went on... i would say no because, images were developing with a steady change, but each one of those blocks still denied veneration. it went from no veneration to no veneration, to no veneration, to no veneration, to veneration. that to me seems like a u turn... now your argument would make sense if you were just talking about images itself, but you are adding veneration to this development when there was no development there until nicea II
Suan, your slide at the 21 minute mark, if you look at that overall, how can you still not say that’s a complete u-turn? It was one way, then it was the complete opposite…i haven’t finished the video so maybe I need to but thought I’d pose the question.
Thanks for your question. Let me first specify what I meant by "u-turn", because this is in reference to Gavin's focus on going from "no veneration" to "veneration". But, you could argue depending on whichever variable, like "icons in churches", that there were "u-turns" based on what came before. Now, you're pointing out that the start (P1) and the finish (P4) are totally different. Here are a few comments worth noting: I don't think P1 and P2 are temporally separate. I think you had people totally opposed to images and people okay with images living simultaneously. But, P1 is in a way more conceptually "primitive" than P2 if that makes sense. In reality, I'd say things should be framed as P2-P4, but I included P1 as a separate phase because Gavin included that position in his presentation. P1, imo, is a simply a vocal minority.
I think a point should be made: what's wrong with a u-turn? Acts 15 was a u-turn in declaring how God's people are to worship God. For a subset of new members, they didn't have to follow the Mosaic law. That's a clear u-turn and it's Biblical.
@@renjithjoseph7135 my thought was that the church can’t declare something to be true then change their mind. Maybe it has to be declared infallible for that to be true, but that’s what I was thinking about. Maybe this never got to that level? If that’s the case, I would assume you’re right. Maybe Suan can chime in on that aspect.
@@intellectualcatholicism I think a main point is lost here. You mention it. But bowing down to images is strictly forbidden. It isn’t like it’s vague. Maybe I’m not seeing the other side but I don’t understand how this is forgotten.
I know you don't agree with Gavin that Church history leads on to see icons as condemned, as it seems you've said here and there. This comment is addressed towards the, "Even if you're right..." angle you're going for in this particular video. It's also, in some regards, well below the standards I feel I typically have, but I still wanted to write it. With regard to the "apostolic apologetic" point, making an analogy with how Paul justified Christian theology (which, as you mentioned, was Akin's point), the issue is that the Israelites, in Christian theology, got things wrong. `Progressive revelation and all that.` But the Church was supposed to get it from the beginning. `Jude says the faith once delivered to the saints.` In your analogy of the polaroid image, it's an image that merely hasn't been fully revealed, and will slowly materialize its already-existing shadow, or "seeds"; however, in reality, the Church _did_ have a positive image, namely that icons were not allowed. It's not a case of a human slowly coming into frame; it's a case of a tiktaalik becoming a human- in other words, it's an evolution of doctrine, not a development. If you admit Gavin's model of, "No image. Image, but not venerated. Image, but not in Church. Venerated image," then you basically admit Gavin's point, insofar as the positive position of "no image" evolves - not develops - from ¬A into A. Very relatedly, I do not believe that history can be reinterpreted, passing over the "middle" of history, and only focusing on the beginning and ending of a certain point of doctrine. In this theory of development, what prevents us from saying the same with homosexuality? That the "ending" of the doctrine is that it's okay, and looking back at the "beginning" by saying, "Well, love is supreme," and passing over all the middle that shows it was not okay. Development of doctrine, rather than being a philosophical practice of "putting 2 and 2 together," seems much more to be a historical reality (or, at the very least, requires both)- appealing instead, _solely,_ to this philosophical rationalization seems like a mistake. The doctrinal niceties might be honorable (e.g., "Icon veneration displays the earthly reality of the Incarnation"), but the historical point is still wanting. Aside from that broad point, I also take issue with the lack of addressing the fact that Nicaea II seems to have its own criteria for a development of doctrine- rather, I'd say, a lack thereof. Again, if you concede Gavin's point that icons went from ¬A to A - or even that it was more primitive, yet was still fully there, like the polaroid analogy - there's still the fact that Nicaea II says this is a doctrine from the start. I admittedly haven't watched Trent's response, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree by putting this here, but it seems we need to examine how _exactly_ an ecumenical council is infallible. Because, and I feel this is a tremendously important point, *if Nicaea II's ruling on the validity of icon veneration hinges on historical reality, does the historical reality disprove Nicaea II, and therefore non-Protestant Chalcedonian Christianity? And, if it does **_not_** hinge on historical reality, on what does it hinge?* (And the next paragraph might be a little odd and tangential as to where it leads, but I think it's very important with regard to the broader Catholic ecclesiology and epistemology, particularly Papal Infallibility.) The first response, I think, would be, "Well, the Church, merely by being authoritative, will always arrive at truth, even if the reasons are wrong." So then why can't we have a Pope speak an infallible statement every breakfast? While the counter-argument to that claim is often, "He can't, because Papal Infallibility is a _negative_ charism, meaning that he just won't speak what's wrong _ex cathedra;_ and what this practically means is that the Pope would be prevented from saying it, even if it means he had to be killed by a lightning strike," we've shown that God did not zap Nicaea II, when, by all accounts, it is not concordant with history _in the way it says it is._ Which leads to the Church being authoritative in what it says, because it will arrive at what's right (READ: not, "It will not arrive at what's wrong," which is how Papal Infallibility has historically been understood, I believe even going back to Gasser). What I think this shows is that Papal Infallibility is indeed a _positive_ charism, meaning that the Pope, if he so chose, would really speak what's true, just as an oracle would; all this contrary to the typical understanding therein. So either Nicaea II is wrong, or Papal Infallibility has been understood incorrectly from the beginning, and is a positive charism, not a negative one. Now, maybe this is kind of like, "Okay? Papal Infallibility is positive, not negative. Cool. Who cares." But this can lead to a shift towards ultramontanism, which we already have enough of in the post-Vatican I world. Plus, it means that the Church (and Pope) acts as an oracle, insofar as its infallibility means that they can know nothing about a given topic, yet the divine dice will roll on what's true. What is the need for scholarship in this world, when the Pope or a council will simply always be right, even if they don't know anything beforehand? Mere prudence? It doesn't seem to have mattered with Nicaea II, since they got the history wrong, yet there didn't seem to be major prudential crises; on the other hand, Vatican II, convened with scholars who did seem to know better, has been a prudential crisis. This seems to lead towards a sort of epistemological absurdism. Yes, all this hinging on the hypothetical "either/or," when answered with, "The Church can be wrong on its justifying reason, but it'll be right in any event." In any case, going to the main point, in sum, the issue is that Gavin, if right, demonstrates that ¬A became A, which, by all accounts, should be an evolution of doctrine, and not a development. Transitional phases do not make things better. Again, I realize you seem to disbelieve Gavin's point, and that's something else. What I'm saying is you _have to_ say that; you can't say, "Even if you're right on _this,_ you're still wrong because..." No. If he's right on _this,_ he's right, full stop, I say.
In the bigger picture, I think Gavin is right. The first commandment is about securing a personal relationship by faith in Jesus. Swaths of Catholics don't have this relationship. Jesus, Mary and saints are seen as sources to obtain this and that spiritual favour. You aren't going to find Satan directly opposing a relationship with God. But veneration of saints has come to a point of distraction. By guilt, devout Catholics are compelled to pray this and that prayer to every Saint. The time that should he spent on study of Scriptures is exhausted in pursuing the story of the latest saint. Our foundations are at an all time weak. Veneration of saints yes. Sacred images yes. But let's not spend too much time on this internal issue until we are distracted from our purpose of bringing people to salvation.
Suan Sonna I can see why you're using Polaroid as an analogy. You pointed out that in the first phase the image was faint, in the second phase has yellow tint, in the third phase the yellow tint no longer visible because other colors emerge and absorb it, then the fourth phase where we see the image clearly. But Protestants won't accept it. Because this argument leads to Jimmy Akin namely iconography in hierarchy of truth is the tertiary level. For Protestants tertiary is optional. Gavin Ortlund pointed out that Second Nicaea explicitly denied that icon veneration is a development but rather the fathers argued they're defending what the apostles taught the fathers before them. For me Newman development is analogical with resolution. So you watch pixelated VHS, then you watch VCD, DVD, 1080p Blu-ray, and UHD Blu-ray you notice hierarchy of clarity. In each stage of resolution it's already there. But due to pixelation it's not clear. As time passes the Church able to articulate the same dogma with better clarity with better resolution. Finally we have 8k HDR at that point human eyes no longer able to distinguish the pixel anymore. This approach is different than brother Michael Lofton view who believes ecumenical councils not protected with infallibility on their anathemas. Because even with lower resolution no false image is made. We won't see an object at lower resolution which then removed at higher resolution. Whatever we see in the lower resolution is retained in the higher resolution. The difference now at higher resolution we could see it clearly. This way anathemas are infallible. Because at Ephesus it was declared infallibly that ecumenical council is words of God or God's breathe. As words of God equal to Scripture ecumenical councils can't erred even in anathemas. Thank you for your good work in defending the faith. Blessing from your Eastern Catholic brother.
@Adithia Kusno. I would be fine with the Polaroid analogy, but Suan puts in on the screen and then doesn't use it! What he's saying is that the change was a process...a development. What he is failing to say is that this particular change is a slowly developing U-turn! We're going from no images to images, from no images in church to images in church, from no veneration of images to veneration of images. This totally conflicts with Suan's analogy (and yours, as well). For the Polaroid to demonstrate what Suan wants it to demonstrate, the initial image would need to be a faint image of a man with a mustache and beard. The mustache and beard would need to slowly fade out of view while longer hair and more feminine features became pronounced. But that is not what happens. I am not aware of any metaphor typically used for development (say the growth of a child or the growth of a tree) that would include "about faces" in the process toward a particular doctrine's destination.
If somebody says Mary save us the impression is that Mary can save you. The problem with your context argument is more explanation is thus needed. It is taught that Mary controls half of God's Kingdom where Christ is the judge and Mary is mercy of all graces. That's the very root and heart of thr problem. Is God's kingdom divided? You will say no on the basis that God relinquished certain tasks to Mary that has always been attributed to God. If Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow then nothing has changed in how God deals with his people and those who are rebels to God. But for you; you must say that God has changed because you have. Not YOU personally but those who tell you that you must preach a homily to Mary in oder to be saved his problematic. Here is the quote that comes directly from the glory of Marys book: Those Who Preach Mary Theologians are clear on this point. Those who preach Mary are certain of salvation (St. Bonaventure). The Church, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, says about Mary, “Whoever explains me shall have everlasting life.” (Eccl 24:31). “Rejoice in Mary, my soul, for good things are prepared for those who praise her.” (St. Bonaventure). So, let us praise her so she can lead us into heaven. Mary appeared to St. Bridget, instructing her to tell Bishop Ermingo (who began his homilies in praise of Mary), that he would die a holy death and that she would bring his soul to God. Because a Dominican priest always spoke of her, Mary appeared to him with similar promises. St. Anselm says that the Saviour came to save sinners through Mary’s womb. Therefore, their salvation will come from “the remembrance of her praises.” I firmly believe that all graces are dispensed by Mary and all are saved through her. Therefore, the salvation of every soul depends upon our preaching Mary and exciting all to confidence in her. Through Mary, St. Bernadine of Sienna sanctified Italy and St. Dominic converted so many. I have made it an inviolable rule that every mission preached by a Redemptorist must preach a homily on Mary. In many cases, this homily produces more compunction than any other. “We praise her virginity, admire her humility but, as sinners, we are most attracted by her mercy.” (St. Bernard) Focus of This Book To describe her many prerogatives, I have labored many years to collect the sayings of saints. I focus these sayings on mercy and powerful intercession as portrayed in the prayer, “Hail Holy Queen.” Dear reader, if you like this book, then pray to Mary for me. Bind yourself to the two anchors of Jesus and Mary, and you will not be lost. “Jesus and Mary, for you I suffer and die that I may be yours in all things.” (St. Alphonsus Rodriguez). Until we meet in Paradise". As what is cited our salvation comes through her and not Christ. As it is plain that our salvation depends on Mary! And you are telling us that Mary dosent save? Or that Protestants don't have a good understanding of what is meant by our salvation depends and comes through to us by Mary? No, sorry for God the Father says that his will is to believe in his Son and salvation comes through him and no other. Thats why Protestants have a hard time with your explanations because it goes against what the Father tells us his will is!
@WeaponOfChoice here is another quote from it: The Merits of Mary “Prayer said by a sinner is still useful in obtaining grace to abandon sin.” (St. Bernard). “The sinner’s prayer obtains the grace of forgiveness. This grace comes from the merits of Christ.” (St. Thomas) The same is true of Mary. “If the one who prays does not merit to be heard, the merits of Mary will intercede effectively.” (St. Anselm) Mary’s merits can obtain forgiveness. “You were unworthy of grace. However, through Mary you received God’s help.” (St. Bernard) “A mother would do everything to reconcile a hatred between her two sons. Mary is the mother of Jesus and our mother. She does all she can to reconcile us to Jesus.” “O Mary, you are the mother of both the criminal (the sinner) and the judge (Jesus). Both are your children and you cannot endure any discord.” (St. Bonaventure
@WeaponOfChoice God listens to ALL people of whom do the Fathers will. Does God show favorites? Where in the Bible does all of Maryoligy come from? Don't cite rev 12 because historically and ecclesiastical interpretation does NOT support that. John was told to care for Mary because of the Law. Since John believed in Christ and was there at the cross he had a duty to leave his mother with a brother of his. Since his half brothers did not believe they were unfit at that time. To say she "intercedes" is an error because only Christ is our intercession with God the Father. If the will of the Father is to believe and listen to his Son then what else is there? You say more is required without understanding what you are saying. That is the Appostles themselves did not have the fullness of the gospel. Why? Because they did not preach Marys immaculate conception, nor her sinlessness nor her assumption. You might say but we have Oral tradition! Well what is that? And how would you know that it came from God if you can't test it against his word? Did not Christ himself ask the Jews have you not read? He asks this numerous times, why that? It's because the written word is God's word. The oral tradition per Christ was man made. What do you make of Hebrews 10 I think where Paul explores all those God uses as examples of faith?
Our lady of Guadalupe tilma veil of monapello Veronica's veil Our lady of Las Lajas miracle all these though never heard on the media are miracles from God. The icons and images aren't worshipped but are from God to convert sinners.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" - 2 Timothy 4:3 The chart shows an accumulation of teachers...a gradual exchange of spiritual realities for material ones (the exact issue the early church was concerned with...they had iconoclast attitudes but didn't generally practice iconoclasm), and intellectual justifications that come later. Mankind loves to justify himself. The line between God's absolute standards and those concocted by man to suit his own passions and a need for something tangible that excites the senses, is blurred, then it shifts, then it's redrawn. From the golden calf to the carved images of Judges 17, to Ashera, and with countless other examples, history repeats itself. It happens in all traditions, to varying degrees. "Protestants" are not immune. “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." - Exodus 20:3-6 God means what He says. It's not a tertiary issue, though it's also not one where we are to exact our own vengeance. Iconoclasm is wrong for other reasons. The early church had good reasons for their stance. They recognized the superiority of the invisible and the danger of relying on visible things made with mere human hands. It's not coincidental that the developments parallel acceptance, tolerance, and enforcement of "Christianity." An increasing influx of people from the pagan world naturally resulted in this. The Edicts of Milan and Thessalonica, the phony donation of Constantine, the fusion of church and state, and the flawed idea of a Christian society (the "Imperium Christianum") that people are born and baptized into, that was to conquer heathen kingdoms in the name of Christ and fill the world, is what led to Nicaea II. It wasn't God gradually revealing, over 7 centuries, how to properly venerate an object so as not to cross the worship barrier. Read God's Word and realize it is the creator of the universe speaking to you, not through someone else to you, indirectly. There's a great article online: "Luther and the Iconoclasts." If one can get beyond their hatred of Luther (equivalent of murder, according to God's standards), for 10 minutes, it's a good read.
Speaking to us in English, Mr Cooper? The Bible isn't perspicuous. We should learn from those who were closer in time, place and language to the Apostles and first Christians. If your quote from Exodus is absolute, why does God demand the reverse later with the cherubim, the bronze serpent, the Incarnation Itself? God doesn't make absolute laws and then make exceptions for Himself.
@@renjithjoseph7135 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." - Galatians 3:19-26 "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”" Romans 7:7 ESV The law predates church fathers by thousands of years. It doesn't need to be interpreted and refined by a council to serve its God-given purpose.
@@renjithjoseph7135 Acts 15 doesn't interpret the law. Not sure where you get that from. It actually points the Gentiles to it...avoid sexual immortality and idolatry. The question the meeting addressed was the applicability of Mosaic customs to converted Gentiles. Augustine handled the text well: "So that compromise, by which neither Jews were to be forbidden nor Gentiles to be compelled, was kept by the apostles and decreed by a council. When this issue, you see, was agitating many people, troubling many people, a meeting was held in Jerusalem, and when all the apostles had assembled and the elders of the Church, that is, the presbyters and any preachers of the gospel and those in charge of Churches, it was enacted by common consent, under the Lord’s inspiration of course, that these things were neither to be forbidden to the Jews nor forced on the Gentiles. Many will recall that this is all written in the Acts of the Apostles; those who don’t recall it should read it. So this was a very very moderate, very very religious, very very careful compromise. If it had been ordained that these things were to be immediately given up and rejected, in the same way as sacrifices to idols were to be, then people wouldn’t believe that the one who had laid them down was the true God." Saint Augustine, Sermons Discovered Since 1990, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 11, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997). Page 7.
@@ReformingApologetics Acts 15: the Mosaic Law which God commands His people to follow is not applicable to this subset of new followers given the Incarnation and its meaning. This is determined by the Church Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Icon veneration: the "second commandment" in which God commands no images are allowed to be made and/or bowed to is not applicable to a subset of images given the Incarnation and its meaning. Determined by a Council inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In case anyone is wondering, I do not believe that Gavin's quotes are a comprehensive and nuanced presentation of Christian history pre-Nicaea II. This presentation used his quotes as a means of helping people map a response to Gavin. In other words, this presentation is for clarity on the issues at hand. I hope to one day share what I think is a more complete history. I honestly don't believe, for example, that there was ever a time when having images in churches was universally condemned. The early voices against images seem to be vocal minorities in response to a robust and existing phenomenon.
Did the Appostles teach that it is necessary to venerate images? If they did not then why is it necessary now?
If you say it's because they just did it but yet can't find evidence of this from the Appostles then it is an accretion
Protestant here. Found this response via Gavin’s recommendation in his latest reply to Horn and Akin’s rebuttal video. This was a WAY more coherent response than Horn and Akin’s, and I think a big part of that is your tone. As many have noted, Akin’s smugness was such a turnoff to Protestants that it was very difficult to listen charitably to what he was trying to articulate. Thank you for this video!
I'm actually thankful for Gavins attack, I'm in RCIA without this debate I don't think k i would've learned so much about icon veneration. I'm definitely way more comfortable with the doctrine now coming from calvinism into the true church. Great response suan, loved the deep dive into development.
@harleymann2086 Amen to that brother! Another convert like me.... i spent yesrs trying to understand calvinist doctrines and just couldnt get there but theybseemed to shred the other denominations in debates till i seen them run into catholics. I was stunned.... truth be told even when I was a protestant there were things that I believed that were outside of my theology. I believed in true presence, confession, a form of purgatory, I kissed the cross and bowed to it.... showing veneration and worship through images and objects, and I believed the next time Jesus comes back it's the last time. Once you start realizing most of the things protestants think we believe are myths it's like a chain reaction.
I do appreciate your comment it's very true that protestants keep us on our toes and prevent us from getting too sloppy with scripture. I just hope were influencing them in the same way. I can't tell you how many people breeze over things that scream catholic doctrine in scripture. I know pastors that would preach all day against homosexuality while their second or third wives are nodding their heads and saying amen. Things like that break my heart
after watching multiple times gavin’s and loftons and trent’s videos, I think this is the clearest response, and the only one that really answers gavin’s objections satisfactorily
thank you, i really struggle with this issue
I agree
They did a better response for sure but they’re still wrong though
At 43:43, I realized that my comments need clarification. I believe that Mary would receive this prayer through Christ's power over heaven and earth and her Son would ultimately bring it to the Father. I'm being very specific here, because I believe it is God the Son who mediates between man and God the Father over something like "mercy" and "forgiveness". She would lovingly pass along this request of mine to the One who pleads my cause before the Father (1 John 2:1). I am simply glad that her motherly intercession was in the process. She would pray/speak to God (the Son) and God (the Father) would receive it. I think this is also the best way to understand the quote at the end: the saints, who have experienced Theosis/Christosis, bring my prayer to God and it is God the Son who pleads my case to the Father. Christ is absolutely essential in this process, because the saint on their own has no "pleading" power before The Father. That's the power of the Son.
Thank you for the concise, non-inflammatory, emotionally neutral, academic response. I wish Trent and Jimmy would take more of this approach, addressing Gavin using sound argument rather than resorting to personal critiques, “he doesn’t seem to understand x y and z” and “he’s a fundamentalist”, and so on.
I think trent was fine in his approach. it was akin that took it too far with his critique.
God bless you, Suan, for this very clear explanation of doctrinal development that didn’t feel weaselly or sloppy.
A Protestant friend of mine sent me Gavin’s video, and I was a bit perturbed by it, even though I sensed intuitively as a Catholic that he was missing some context that I simply “feel” after a lifetime of living within it.
I often find myself expressing something to the effect of what you’ve done here, reminding people outside that they can’t apply their paradigm to Catholic theology and expect it to make sense and that Catholicism (much like our Eastern brethren are always saying as well) is something that has to be experienced- not simply thought about- to comprehend.
Your explanation of the communion of saints as being part of the family of God brought tears to my eyes since it resonated with that deeper truth I’ve experienced but is hard to convey to those who haven’t yet.
I started this comment by saying “God bless you” for your eloquent explanation, but in keeping with the theme of this video, I also have to say God bless the commenter on Gavin’s video who pointed me to you, just as we say to our brothers and sisters the saints who do the same for us with regards to Christ.
Well this was well laid out, nice job touching on important aspects of development & veneration, helpful & charitable at that. No matter the objections, as Catholics we know where the beauty & the fullness of the holy faith resides
This was phenomenal. Blew the other rebuttals out of the water in clarity and charity. Thank you!!!
This is hands-down the best response to Gavin thusfar. I love Jimmy and Trent, but in this case your response was much more satisfactory.
This was an excellent follow up to Trent and Jimmy's response!
Your analogy of the Polaroid picture is excellent.
8:00 Suan, God bless you. This is suuuuuuch a good point!! I think this is often why it’s so difficult for people to see the holes in Gavin’s arguments!
Thank you for this video brother Suan. This was a great sequel to Jimmy and Trent's response. I got to learn a lot of things new things in this video that I never heard or even consider before.
Thank you Suan. This response is gold.
Thank you very much for such a charitable and balanced presentation.
I just watched a video of Jordan B. Cooper where he tries to frame that Newman is basically an escape hatch which is used by Catholics to argue their way out of every contradiction that is to be found.
But I thought that you brought a clear image showing that it isn't a far-fetched strange thing.
I also loved the end, concerning our brothers and sisters in Christ in heaven, sometimes we get all lost in the technical stuff, and then forget to be happy en joyful about things like the communion of saints.
This amazing family we have alive and well in heaven, I can't wait to finally meet them their.
God willing!
May God bless and guide you Suan!
All viable churches need to have some notion of development to be logically consistent.
The theory of Doctrinal Development is not an escape hatch because it was first formulated by the Early Church Fathers, not Newman.
God bless you very you are good soldier of god ❤
As a Protestant who loves both of your channels, and watches pretty regularly, I can't help but feel like despite the zealous arguments on both sides, I am nonetheless greatful that Christians today still feel passionately about the ways of showing proper reverence to God. Even Jimmy Akin acknowledges that this is a fairly minor issue (especially in the Western Church) and it is good to see Christians zealous over issues of worship, without using real vitriol and violence.
it's not minor if it is anathema to disagree with the Catholic Church. Grace and Peace to you. Dogmas and anathemas are not helpful where they aren't warranted.
Uhm did you even watch the skin response? It was unprofessional
Trent is kinda iffy
@@Golfinthefamily So then submit to an authority higher than yourself and finally be Christian.
@@justinfoard3322 I submit to the word of God, therefore I cannot follow someone who bows to pagan Gods... Exodus 23:24. I submit to God. The ultimately authority, not man.
Your pope has violated God's command in Exodus, bowing to pagan Gods.
Also, why would I waste one breath pleading to other humans when I have access directly to the father?
Grace and Peace to you!
Learning so much. Thanks Suan.
This was excellent. Thank you
Beautifully stated and respectfully presented. I agree with others who have said this response was the easiest to follow and really answers Dr. Ortlund’s concerns.
Excellent video Suan! As an Evangelical Protestant who is working through various issues in regards to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy I found your arguments very helpful. I watched through both your video and Gavin's ( Haven't watched Trent and Jimmy's yet, but probably will soon).
He’s misleading, Christian knew the difference between the veneration of Icons and the invocation of the saints
Purely scholarly...great work, keep it up.....Kudos for the response to Jimmy and Horn, glad it came first. Very necessary for Gavin's protestant apologetics disguised as scholarship engagement
The incarnation means that God is saving creation THROUGH CREATION-uniting it to Himself. No one and no thing is worthy of veneration. God makes us venerable. God makes us worthy. Suan is starting to grasp the magnitude of the incarnation. Well done!
Well articulated, Suan!
thank you. you made an excellent case showing there was a legitimate doctrinal developement through those centuries making it acceptable for us Catholics while being fair to protestants. nice job!.
Great job brother. You did a great job showing the misconceptions Gavin has with both his biblical understanding and that of doctrinal development.
Thank you for doing this brother
Very well done, Suan! God bless!
Orthodox here--I listened to Pageau's video on iconography last week (or the week before, don't remember), and liked it quite a lot. He brought it to a different mode of conversation that pointed to how icons reflect the total change in humanity's relationship with God pre and post incarnation. Listened to this just a little bit and I get the sense that you're approaching this correctly insofar as a scholarly approach and analysis goes. Different angle but good stuff man.
I really enjoyed your video Suan. As someone who explored the Eastern Orthodox route, and carefully listened to Gavin Ortlund’s arguments, and who is now a Protestant (LCMS Lutheran), I can honestly say you make some excellent and compelling points. I tend to err on the side of affirming icons in church, and cautiously affirming the veneration thereof. You said many times “we can”…. “Can”. I don’t dispute that we Christian’s “can” use sacred images. Possibly even venerate them. However, my problem rests (and I know Gavin has the same concerns) in the anathematizing of persons who don’t venerate icons, per the words of the 7th ecumenical council. I can’t escape the implications of that claim. And I can’t affirm that failing to venerate an icon someone threatens one’s salvation. In the words of the bishops, to be anathema is “nothing less than being cut off from God.” I begged the priests in the EO church I was visiting to explain this to me and how it is consistent with the fundamental basis and demands of the Gospel but no one could give me an answer. I wish you had addressed this issue in your video. I believe this issue is even more problematic than the question of the validity of icons (in church, being venerated). I wish someone could offer a legitimate explanation of the anathemas and how to reconcile it with the basis of salvation.
The "back to the beginning" principle, good move! It makes sense given Paul's use of the same, as you pointed out. If one subscribed to sola scriptura in the time of Paul, one would have necessarily agreed with the judaisers. They had the much more straightforward reading of scripture on their side in their belief that gentile converts had to become Jewish. But Christ revealed something that seemed, at first glance, counter to scripture. Just like Nicea II revealed (or rather clarified) something that, at first glance, seems counter to apostolic tradition. And Christ gave authority to bind and loose to his Church.
Id say what we inherited from the fathers and early church wasn't no Icons no Images, but the idea that idolatry was wrong. What exactly was and wasn't idolatry needed to be pieced together as things such as the incarnation were understood.
Suan is darn right.
Veneration of Saints ---- > honored to relics of saint -----> veneration of relics ----> honor of images ----> veneration of images.
this was a great video! love your points. My husband and I are converts from protestantism as well & I went to Kstate also :)
Keep up the good work, God bless!
Protestant here. You have consistently in my opinion given the best arguments for Catholicism out there, and this was no different.
This response actually gives me something to think about. After Horn/Akin's video, I was just disappointed. I was like "if this is the best the Catholics have on this position, I'll be a convicted Protestant for life."
Your response is actually thought provoking for me. There are a couple points you made I disagree with, but in general, this is a much more satisfying response to hear from the other side.
If you want the best argument for Catholicism, check out a documentary called Protestantism's Big Justification Lie. The argument in that video is irrefutable.
@@lukebrasting5108 where is it available?
We don't have access to Jesus through Mary and the Saints. The opposite is true. We have access to Mary and the Saints through Jesus Christ. We have access to a whole family in heaven and on earth. That's the communion of Saints. The triune God is inherently communitarian, not an individualist.
Thanks for the correction/clarification.
This is a great way to put it.
It’s kinda both.
I find it REALLY telling that a genuinely intelligent Protestant Doctor had to sink to mere worry and moral panic to justify his position by the end.
I don't know if you watched the whole thing, but by the end he literally was saying:
"I don't know if it's worth the risk to bow and venerate statues, even if it isn't worship, who knows when you'll cross that line?"
It was PURE Puritanism with nothing else underpinning it. If you work off the basis that venerating icons won't lead to idolatry, then Gavin has literally no argument.
This was really great. I like how you didn't need to re-interpret the historical data. Great analysis.
My points:
- Visual representations help a lot in these discussions. We could sure use more of those, and of somehow modeling the discussion towards a more comprehensible form, rather than just people talking for hours!
- Suan makes a good case for veneration but what about intercession? I get celebrating the sanctification/martyrdom of a Christian and honoring their life/teaching/sacrifice, but how does one justify them praying on your behalf for God to be merciful, or to somehow helps towards God granting salvation? Didn't God already do that? Isn't it enough that Jesus died on the cross and paid for our sins? There's only so much one can cover in the video, and I'm asking this questions should there be a follow-up. I'm very thankful for such videos. God bless!
My takeaway is well summed up by your final slide: this debate is secondary to the one about the infallibility of the Magisterium and the possibility of a biblical theology of icon veneration. I am *very* interested in any and all resources on, particularly, the latter, if you or anyone has any tips.
Think this and Craig Truglias responses were good.
Great job.
This was a really good response, thank you.
Having said that, I think the concern that Gavin had that practical Catholicism seems to idolise Mary. This is real. I just met a young man who entered RCIA very devoted to Mary because of the influence of his mom, but doesn't think Jesus existed. We have Catholics who, in their personal devotion pray the Rosary but don't read Scripture or know how to pray directly to the Father.
I'm also concerned about trajectories that might lead us completely out. Here I'm thinking if German bishops see themselves as the next step in a trajectory by accepting LGBTQ marriages. Satan knows he won't be able to make us apostasise overnight but by little changes over time
Great Explanation Brother
So yes, icon veneration is a clear accretion.
Awesome video Suan
It also seems there is a point to be made that the opposite can be done. You can dishonor through an image. Didn't many people apostasize by stepping on an image of Christ? Can't we relate to a human experience of ripping or burning a picture of someone who has betrayed us? I'm just saying that it seems this idea is a truth that we experience day to day. People tearing down statues, that invoke feelings of betrayal or injustice for them... We honor and dishonor icons all the time.
Great point.
This quote is taken from St John of Damascus' APOLOGIA OF ST JOHN DAMASCENE AGAINST THOSE WHO DECRY HOLY IMAGES.
*St Athanasius* from the Hundred Chapters addressed to Antiochus, the Prefect, according to Question and Answer.--Chap. xxxviii.
Answer.-We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not [121] because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.
If it can be proven _beyond all _*_reasonable doubt_*_ that_ this quote is from St Athanasius, then Gavin is a dead duck.
Because: If St Athanasius, the great defender of the Trinity, does not represent true christian doctrine, then who does?
Is this quote addressed by Gavin?
Another point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is... who would the apostles have even made icons in the first place? It makes perfect sense that this wasn't an apostolic tradition because apart from Jesus and Mary they basically had no one to venerate.
I don't know why Catholics are falling for Gavin's videos without questioning or engaging their content in Gavin's comment section. They just assume that it s all true , then they thank Gavin and start panicking. Is it Gavin's external niceties and charitable tone that beguile them ? Charity in these oecumenical dialogues is only the minimum (though important) prerequisite, get to the bottom of his content and stop that childish bilievism . Thanks Suan for the video!
I think the niceness is problematic in that it it’s a cloak for sone really bad arguments and assumptions about his opponents
Only low information Catholics are falling for it unfortunately they are out there and have always been easy pickings for evangelicals. The better informed listened to Akin and Trent and now Suan for the reasons that it is a legitimate development in church history.
I agree! I don’t get people saying things like “This makes me question everything about being Catholic. Thank you so much, Gavin.” So weird.
@@catkat740 These so called Catholics seem to want an excuse to get of the Catholic Church and Gavin gave them the get out of Catholic Card. Now will these same people give Akin and Swan the time of day to present their case to remain in the church. Highly unlikely a person so willing to give up their belief system in an hour long you tube show doesn’t want to do the research as they already had one foot out and was looking for any excuse to move the other foot.
Pulling, deceiving people out of the original church ain't right... Pray for Gavin. Pray for straying sheep.
Great video brother. It seems to me that Gavin is presupposing that icons must be settled in first couple centuries. The problem with that is virtually no Christian doctrine would pass this test. It took hundreds of years before the Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, the Canon and many other issues would be settled.
I wonder if there is a Catholic phenomenon of spiritual experiences in which laity swear an icon nods back or acknowledges the bow.
That for a brief moment the saint is there saying "yes you are my brother"
If Gavin was right. This shows gradual development. But I think there was images used in worship in Christianity from the very beginning:
-Eusebius of Caserea's Church History Book XII, Chapter 18 in the most acceptable source writes it was there from the beginning with the bleeding women statues and the gentiles customary of images. (he doesn't call it wrong either.)
- And I do believe the tradition of St. Luke of the paintings and images he made
- I do believe the Armenian Apostolic Church tradition of Apostle Bartholemew hanging up the portrait of Mary in the first church in Armenia
- Further I do believe the miraculous image in Our Lady of Guadalupe was made by God
Good work brother🙏
What’s interesting is that few Catholics I know has ever venerated a image. I love icons and Christian art but I don’t think I have ever venerated a image. I think it’s a beautiful teaching but think most average Catholics don’t practice this. I have met Catholics that never prayed the Rosary or the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.
Western Catholics rarely do but Eastern Catholics love and venerate icons.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Yes, that what I heard. I am Western Catholic.
Nothing wrong with that, i guess, as long as these Catholics are practicing their faith and assent to the teachings of the Church. In matters of personal devotion, the rosary, chaplet, and icon veneration aren't really required by the Church or even the Latin Rite, but rejecting the practice as a Protestant does, will bring the Catholic to guilt of sin.
Honest question, because I find this comment perhaps misleading, unintentionally so I am sure. When you say you never venerated art, do you mean you have never prayed to the image or in its presence? So do you not pray when you see images of the saints and God? How about when the crucifix is right in front of you?
I think people confuse not kissing and prostrating, in the eastern (and correct) mold, as no veneration period, which I don't think is actually correct. Or at least I hope not!
I dont know about you but I have seen plenty of catholics including me praying the rosary or divine mercy in front of their images. that is part of venerating icons/saints. you can say it is not common to see kisses of images in churches but I would say we do that in our own homes.
Keep in mind Latin America have shown of influx of evangelical pentecostal churches constantly accusing catholics of idolatry.
How do you reconcile your doctrinal development views with “The Oath” from 1910 specifically “the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport” this quote from Pope Pius doesn’t sound like a polaroid to me.
Suan, your assumption of Gavin’s motivations are wrong. His primary objective is not to determine whether icon veneration is wrong. He believes it to be wrong based in his interpretation of Scripture. His main objective is to keep Christians Protestant, and for him, the best way to do this is to discredit the Catholic Church and its system of development. If he can prove that the Catholic Church has erred, then that invalidates the Church’s authority to outline doctrine.
But the problem is that Gavin just used the Church Fathers as a weapon to be used. For example, Gavin argues that Hieria was an ecumenical council, despite the fact that theology of Hieria actually undermines the dogmas at the Council of Ephesus, specifically over the issue that Hieria thinks that the only icon worth venerating is the Eucharist. That’s extremely problematic as it goes against Ephesus where it’s stated that the normative christological theology is St. Cyril’s letters against Nestorius. Wherein St. Cyril says that the Eucharist is not an icon of Christ but is the very flesh and blood of Christ and so consequently can not be venerated but rather worshipped.
Does anyone know the music in the beginning?
I watched Gavin's, Lofton's and Trent's videos, but this video was a little hard to find. No one linked to you in their videos!
There were several points in the video where you stated what Gavin believed and I'm not sure he really believes things that way, one instance was saying "Gavin accepts only the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith." (I don't think that's quite accurate of sola scriptura or Gavin's view) And there were several other places where I found myself wondering "does Ortlund really believe that?" note: I have watched quite a bit of his stuff.
Dr Ortlund in his presentation says the quote of St Basil in Nicea 2 is misattributed to St Basil.
Looking back, I think I recall something like this. Could you remind me again where Gavin said this? Something like the original quote appears to be St. Athanasius in “Against the Arians” 3.23.5. However, St. Basil does talk about in “On the Holy Spirit” of honor from the image going to the prototype.
@@intellectualcatholicism at the 1 hour 11min point of Dr Gavin's video .
@@aajaifenn Thank you!
It’s not misattributed because in how Nicaea II uses it, they point out that St. Basil the Great’s quotes on image and prototype can be extended incarnationally. St. Cyril uses the same language when debating nestorius over wether or not the Eucharist can be merely venerated or worshiped.
@@justin_messer i am talking about the quote in Nicea 2 where Basil purportedly says that he himself venerates images
Did the Fathers say no veneration, or no adoration?
15:43
Clement of Alexandria already accepted some images/symbols that would be against the 2nd commandment, like the Shepherd, or the Dove (a manifestation of God the Spirit). And he says that an Anchor and a Boat would bring you the memory of the Apostles...we already have a symbol > reality relation here.
Tertullian (already a heretic) is a hostile witness to the image of the Shepherd being carved in the most sacred object of the Church (Eucharistic Chalice), the thing were according to Paul we have communion to God.
Also, Elvira is probably a forgerie (but they ignore as always, they just want to point the iconodule forgerie) but the canon 8 of Antioch was deemed authentic even by hostile protestant scholars (they just interpret in an spiritual way).
Two evidence of 0 veneration.
Elvira is not a forgerie but all the evidence they presented in the Council were strictly forgeries.
Sola Scriptura certainly adds to the talking past each other. I think also what contributes is how Ratzinger describes Councils not as nourishment for the faith, but medicinal. It seems like Dr. Ortlund spends a lot of time looking at Councils (Nicea II, Florence, Trent, etc) and this influences how he understands the Church as a whole, which ends up being a distortion.
If you had a time machine, and went to 40 AD and bowed before the apostle Paul.... how would he have responded?
He would accept it.
@@namapalsu2364 that definitely contrasts with how the apostles operated in the book of Acts
@@pigetstuck Really? Why? People bow to other people in the bible. I'm sure you know the verses where this happens, right? It would be too embarassing if you do not.
@@namapalsu2364 the Paul of the new testament would pick me up and say that he was a man just like any other and instruct me to worship Christ... that is what he and the apostles did... they were people just like you or me
@@pigetstuck who said it was worship?
And what about in the New Testament.. Peters shadow or Pauls handkerchief? I know these aren't images, but its the idea, that people may be holding a handkerchief up as a holy item, not to be worshiped, but as a conduit? I maybe have this all wrong, but its what comes to mind.. Maybe Suan could flesh this out and help me clarify what I am thinking..lol
47:20 is the main point, but the challenging thing is that this is precisely where protestants not just differ but are inconsistent (if not unfair in their rash criticism of Catholics and Orthodox calling it "concern").... they both affirm that and reject the same. And for me, that is the annoying part.... Great video...
hey, at 19:47, you are saying images and veneration are developing as time went on... i would say no because, images were developing with a steady change, but each one of those blocks still denied veneration. it went from no veneration to no veneration, to no veneration, to no veneration, to veneration. that to me seems like a u turn... now your argument would make sense if you were just talking about images itself, but you are adding veneration to this development when there was no development there until nicea II
He addressed this saying that there's still no veneration in P1 to P3.
Too bad I can't timestamped it.
Suan, your slide at the 21 minute mark, if you look at that overall, how can you still not say that’s a complete u-turn? It was one way, then it was the complete opposite…i haven’t finished the video so maybe I need to but thought I’d pose the question.
Thanks for your question. Let me first specify what I meant by "u-turn", because this is in reference to Gavin's focus on going from "no veneration" to "veneration". But, you could argue depending on whichever variable, like "icons in churches", that there were "u-turns" based on what came before. Now, you're pointing out that the start (P1) and the finish (P4) are totally different. Here are a few comments worth noting:
I don't think P1 and P2 are temporally separate. I think you had people totally opposed to images and people okay with images living simultaneously. But, P1 is in a way more conceptually "primitive" than P2 if that makes sense. In reality, I'd say things should be framed as P2-P4, but I included P1 as a separate phase because Gavin included that position in his presentation. P1, imo, is a simply a vocal minority.
I think a point should be made: what's wrong with a u-turn? Acts 15 was a u-turn in declaring how God's people are to worship God. For a subset of new members, they didn't have to follow the Mosaic law. That's a clear u-turn and it's Biblical.
@@renjithjoseph7135 my thought was that the church can’t declare something to be true then change their mind. Maybe it has to be declared infallible for that to be true, but that’s what I was thinking about. Maybe this never got to that level? If that’s the case, I would assume you’re right. Maybe Suan can chime in on that aspect.
@@toddgruber5729 ah I see. Yes, I think that only applies to things with the stamp of infallibility but I'm no expert either.
@@intellectualcatholicism I think a main point is lost here. You mention it. But bowing down to images is strictly forbidden. It isn’t like it’s vague.
Maybe I’m not seeing the other side but I don’t understand how this is forgotten.
I know you don't agree with Gavin that Church history leads on to see icons as condemned, as it seems you've said here and there. This comment is addressed towards the, "Even if you're right..." angle you're going for in this particular video. It's also, in some regards, well below the standards I feel I typically have, but I still wanted to write it.
With regard to the "apostolic apologetic" point, making an analogy with how Paul justified Christian theology (which, as you mentioned, was Akin's point), the issue is that the Israelites, in Christian theology, got things wrong. `Progressive revelation and all that.` But the Church was supposed to get it from the beginning. `Jude says the faith once delivered to the saints.` In your analogy of the polaroid image, it's an image that merely hasn't been fully revealed, and will slowly materialize its already-existing shadow, or "seeds"; however, in reality, the Church _did_ have a positive image, namely that icons were not allowed. It's not a case of a human slowly coming into frame; it's a case of a tiktaalik becoming a human- in other words, it's an evolution of doctrine, not a development. If you admit Gavin's model of, "No image. Image, but not venerated. Image, but not in Church. Venerated image," then you basically admit Gavin's point, insofar as the positive position of "no image" evolves - not develops - from ¬A into A.
Very relatedly, I do not believe that history can be reinterpreted, passing over the "middle" of history, and only focusing on the beginning and ending of a certain point of doctrine. In this theory of development, what prevents us from saying the same with homosexuality? That the "ending" of the doctrine is that it's okay, and looking back at the "beginning" by saying, "Well, love is supreme," and passing over all the middle that shows it was not okay.
Development of doctrine, rather than being a philosophical practice of "putting 2 and 2 together," seems much more to be a historical reality (or, at the very least, requires both)- appealing instead, _solely,_ to this philosophical rationalization seems like a mistake. The doctrinal niceties might be honorable (e.g., "Icon veneration displays the earthly reality of the Incarnation"), but the historical point is still wanting.
Aside from that broad point, I also take issue with the lack of addressing the fact that Nicaea II seems to have its own criteria for a development of doctrine- rather, I'd say, a lack thereof. Again, if you concede Gavin's point that icons went from ¬A to A - or even that it was more primitive, yet was still fully there, like the polaroid analogy - there's still the fact that Nicaea II says this is a doctrine from the start. I admittedly haven't watched Trent's response, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree by putting this here, but it seems we need to examine how _exactly_ an ecumenical council is infallible. Because, and I feel this is a tremendously important point, *if Nicaea II's ruling on the validity of icon veneration hinges on historical reality, does the historical reality disprove Nicaea II, and therefore non-Protestant Chalcedonian Christianity? And, if it does **_not_** hinge on historical reality, on what does it hinge?* (And the next paragraph might be a little odd and tangential as to where it leads, but I think it's very important with regard to the broader Catholic ecclesiology and epistemology, particularly Papal Infallibility.)
The first response, I think, would be, "Well, the Church, merely by being authoritative, will always arrive at truth, even if the reasons are wrong." So then why can't we have a Pope speak an infallible statement every breakfast? While the counter-argument to that claim is often, "He can't, because Papal Infallibility is a _negative_ charism, meaning that he just won't speak what's wrong _ex cathedra;_ and what this practically means is that the Pope would be prevented from saying it, even if it means he had to be killed by a lightning strike," we've shown that God did not zap Nicaea II, when, by all accounts, it is not concordant with history _in the way it says it is._ Which leads to the Church being authoritative in what it says, because it will arrive at what's right (READ: not, "It will not arrive at what's wrong," which is how Papal Infallibility has historically been understood, I believe even going back to Gasser). What I think this shows is that Papal Infallibility is indeed a _positive_ charism, meaning that the Pope, if he so chose, would really speak what's true, just as an oracle would; all this contrary to the typical understanding therein. So either Nicaea II is wrong, or Papal Infallibility has been understood incorrectly from the beginning, and is a positive charism, not a negative one.
Now, maybe this is kind of like, "Okay? Papal Infallibility is positive, not negative. Cool. Who cares." But this can lead to a shift towards ultramontanism, which we already have enough of in the post-Vatican I world. Plus, it means that the Church (and Pope) acts as an oracle, insofar as its infallibility means that they can know nothing about a given topic, yet the divine dice will roll on what's true. What is the need for scholarship in this world, when the Pope or a council will simply always be right, even if they don't know anything beforehand? Mere prudence? It doesn't seem to have mattered with Nicaea II, since they got the history wrong, yet there didn't seem to be major prudential crises; on the other hand, Vatican II, convened with scholars who did seem to know better, has been a prudential crisis. This seems to lead towards a sort of epistemological absurdism.
Yes, all this hinging on the hypothetical "either/or," when answered with, "The Church can be wrong on its justifying reason, but it'll be right in any event."
In any case, going to the main point, in sum, the issue is that Gavin, if right, demonstrates that ¬A became A, which, by all accounts, should be an evolution of doctrine, and not a development. Transitional phases do not make things better. Again, I realize you seem to disbelieve Gavin's point, and that's something else. What I'm saying is you _have to_ say that; you can't say, "Even if you're right on _this,_ you're still wrong because..." No. If he's right on _this,_ he's right, full stop, I say.
@WeaponOfChoice I am Orthodox.
In the bigger picture, I think Gavin is right. The first commandment is about securing a personal relationship by faith in Jesus. Swaths of Catholics don't have this relationship. Jesus, Mary and saints are seen as sources to obtain this and that spiritual favour.
You aren't going to find Satan directly opposing a relationship with God. But veneration of saints has come to a point of distraction. By guilt, devout Catholics are compelled to pray this and that prayer to every Saint. The time that should he spent on study of Scriptures is exhausted in pursuing the story of the latest saint.
Our foundations are at an all time weak. Veneration of saints yes. Sacred images yes. But let's not spend too much time on this internal issue until we are distracted from our purpose of bringing people to salvation.
Suan Sonna I can see why you're using Polaroid as an analogy. You pointed out that in the first phase the image was faint, in the second phase has yellow tint, in the third phase the yellow tint no longer visible because other colors emerge and absorb it, then the fourth phase where we see the image clearly. But Protestants won't accept it. Because this argument leads to Jimmy Akin namely iconography in hierarchy of truth is the tertiary level. For Protestants tertiary is optional. Gavin Ortlund pointed out that Second Nicaea explicitly denied that icon veneration is a development but rather the fathers argued they're defending what the apostles taught the fathers before them. For me Newman development is analogical with resolution. So you watch pixelated VHS, then you watch VCD, DVD, 1080p Blu-ray, and UHD Blu-ray you notice hierarchy of clarity. In each stage of resolution it's already there. But due to pixelation it's not clear. As time passes the Church able to articulate the same dogma with better clarity with better resolution. Finally we have 8k HDR at that point human eyes no longer able to distinguish the pixel anymore. This approach is different than brother Michael Lofton view who believes ecumenical councils not protected with infallibility on their anathemas. Because even with lower resolution no false image is made. We won't see an object at lower resolution which then removed at higher resolution. Whatever we see in the lower resolution is retained in the higher resolution. The difference now at higher resolution we could see it clearly. This way anathemas are infallible. Because at Ephesus it was declared infallibly that ecumenical council is words of God or God's breathe. As words of God equal to Scripture ecumenical councils can't erred even in anathemas. Thank you for your good work in defending the faith. Blessing from your Eastern Catholic brother.
@Adithia Kusno. I would be fine with the Polaroid analogy, but Suan puts in on the screen and then doesn't use it! What he's saying is that the change was a process...a development. What he is failing to say is that this particular change is a slowly developing U-turn! We're going from no images to images, from no images in church to images in church, from no veneration of images to veneration of images. This totally conflicts with Suan's analogy (and yours, as well). For the Polaroid to demonstrate what Suan wants it to demonstrate, the initial image would need to be a faint image of a man with a mustache and beard. The mustache and beard would need to slowly fade out of view while longer hair and more feminine features became pronounced. But that is not what happens. I am not aware of any metaphor typically used for development (say the growth of a child or the growth of a tree) that would include "about faces" in the process toward a particular doctrine's destination.
would you affirm that Mary is co-redemptrix?
Yes, in certain senses (Col 1:24, 1Cor 9:22 are one of those legitimate senses).
@@namapalsu2364 in the sense that it is meant by Catholic theologians?
@@pigetstuck They differs. Some does meant it as those verses.
If somebody says Mary save us the impression is that Mary can save you. The problem with your context argument is more explanation is thus needed.
It is taught that Mary controls half of God's Kingdom where Christ is the judge and Mary is mercy of all graces. That's the very root and heart of thr problem.
Is God's kingdom divided? You will say no on the basis that God relinquished certain tasks to Mary that has always been attributed to God. If Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow then nothing has changed in how God deals with his people and those who are rebels to God.
But for you; you must say that God has changed because you have. Not YOU personally but those who tell you that you must preach a homily to Mary in oder to be saved his problematic.
Here is the quote that comes directly from the glory of Marys book:
Those Who Preach Mary
Theologians are clear on this point. Those who preach Mary are certain of salvation (St.
Bonaventure). The Church, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, says about Mary,
“Whoever explains me shall have everlasting life.” (Eccl 24:31). “Rejoice in Mary, my soul, for
good things are prepared for those who praise her.” (St. Bonaventure). So, let us praise her so
she can lead us into heaven.
Mary appeared to St. Bridget, instructing her to tell Bishop Ermingo (who began his
homilies in praise of Mary), that he would die a holy death and that she would bring his soul to
God. Because a Dominican priest always spoke of her, Mary appeared to him with similar
promises.
St. Anselm says that the Saviour came to save sinners through Mary’s womb. Therefore,
their salvation will come from “the remembrance of her praises.” I firmly believe that all graces
are dispensed by Mary and all are saved through her. Therefore, the salvation of every soul
depends upon our preaching Mary and exciting all to confidence in her. Through Mary, St.
Bernadine of Sienna sanctified Italy and St. Dominic converted so many.
I have made it an inviolable rule that every mission preached by a Redemptorist must
preach a homily on Mary. In many cases, this homily produces more compunction than any
other. “We praise her virginity, admire her humility but, as sinners, we are most attracted by her
mercy.” (St. Bernard)
Focus of This Book
To describe her many prerogatives, I have labored many years to collect the sayings of
saints. I focus these sayings on mercy and powerful intercession as portrayed in the prayer,
“Hail Holy Queen.”
Dear reader, if you like this book, then pray to Mary for me. Bind yourself to the two
anchors of Jesus and Mary, and you will not be lost. “Jesus and Mary, for you I suffer and die
that I may be yours in all things.” (St. Alphonsus Rodriguez). Until we meet in Paradise".
As what is cited our salvation comes through her and not Christ. As it is plain that our salvation depends on Mary! And you are telling us that Mary dosent save? Or that Protestants don't have a good understanding of what is meant by our salvation depends and comes through to us by Mary?
No, sorry for God the Father says that his will is to believe in his Son and salvation comes through him and no other. Thats why Protestants have a hard time with your explanations because it goes against what the Father tells us his will is!
@WeaponOfChoice Sound bites or cliff notes? Please explain; I gave the full prayer to Mary...
@WeaponOfChoice I already told stated that in my post Glory of Marys book. Google it for yourself and see
@WeaponOfChoice here is another quote from it: The Merits of Mary
“Prayer said by a sinner is still useful in obtaining grace to abandon sin.” (St. Bernard).
“The sinner’s prayer obtains the grace of forgiveness. This grace comes from the merits of
Christ.” (St. Thomas) The same is true of Mary. “If the one who prays does not merit to be
heard, the merits of Mary will intercede effectively.” (St. Anselm)
Mary’s merits can obtain forgiveness. “You were unworthy of grace. However, through
Mary you received God’s help.” (St. Bernard) “A mother would do everything to reconcile a
hatred between her two sons. Mary is the mother of Jesus and our mother. She does all she can
to reconcile us to Jesus.” “O Mary, you are the mother of both the criminal (the sinner) and the
judge (Jesus). Both are your children and you cannot endure any discord.” (St. Bonaventure
@WeaponOfChoice God listens to ALL people of whom do the Fathers will. Does God show favorites?
Where in the Bible does all of Maryoligy come from? Don't cite rev 12 because historically and ecclesiastical interpretation does NOT support that.
John was told to care for Mary because of the Law. Since John believed in Christ and was there at the cross he had a duty to leave his mother with a brother of his. Since his half brothers did not believe they were unfit at that time.
To say she "intercedes" is an error because only Christ is our intercession with God the Father. If the will of the Father is to believe and listen to his Son then what else is there?
You say more is required without understanding what you are saying. That is the Appostles themselves did not have the fullness of the gospel. Why? Because they did not preach Marys immaculate conception, nor her sinlessness nor her assumption.
You might say but we have Oral tradition! Well what is that? And how would you know that it came from God if you can't test it against his word? Did not Christ himself ask the Jews have you not read? He asks this numerous times, why that? It's because the written word is God's word. The oral tradition per Christ was man made.
What do you make of Hebrews 10 I think where Paul explores all those God uses as examples of faith?
@WeaponOfChoice so then, these saints are liars then?
Akin's response was bad...and you know it was when Gavin said that Akin was insulting... that's about as strong as Gavin will say something.
Our lady of Guadalupe tilma veil of monapello Veronica's veil Our lady of Las Lajas miracle all these though never heard on the media are miracles from God. The icons and images aren't worshipped but are from God to convert sinners.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" - 2 Timothy 4:3
The chart shows an accumulation of teachers...a gradual exchange of spiritual realities for material ones (the exact issue the early church was concerned with...they had iconoclast attitudes but didn't generally practice iconoclasm), and intellectual justifications that come later. Mankind loves to justify himself. The line between God's absolute standards and those concocted by man to suit his own passions and a need for something tangible that excites the senses, is blurred, then it shifts, then it's redrawn. From the golden calf to the carved images of Judges 17, to Ashera, and with countless other examples, history repeats itself. It happens in all traditions, to varying degrees. "Protestants" are not immune.
“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." - Exodus 20:3-6
God means what He says. It's not a tertiary issue, though it's also not one where we are to exact our own vengeance. Iconoclasm is wrong for other reasons.
The early church had good reasons for their stance. They recognized the superiority of the invisible and the danger of relying on visible things made with mere human hands. It's not coincidental that the developments parallel acceptance, tolerance, and enforcement of "Christianity." An increasing influx of people from the pagan world naturally resulted in this. The Edicts of Milan and Thessalonica, the phony donation of Constantine, the fusion of church and state, and the flawed idea of a Christian society (the "Imperium Christianum") that people are born and baptized into, that was to conquer heathen kingdoms in the name of Christ and fill the world, is what led to Nicaea II. It wasn't God gradually revealing, over 7 centuries, how to properly venerate an object so as not to cross the worship barrier.
Read God's Word and realize it is the creator of the universe speaking to you, not through someone else to you, indirectly. There's a great article online: "Luther and the Iconoclasts." If one can get beyond their hatred of Luther (equivalent of murder, according to God's standards), for 10 minutes, it's a good read.
Speaking to us in English, Mr Cooper? The Bible isn't perspicuous. We should learn from those who were closer in time, place and language to the Apostles and first Christians.
If your quote from Exodus is absolute, why does God demand the reverse later with the cherubim, the bronze serpent, the Incarnation Itself? God doesn't make absolute laws and then make exceptions for Himself.
@@renjithjoseph7135 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." - Galatians 3:19-26
"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”"
Romans 7:7 ESV
The law predates church fathers by thousands of years. It doesn't need to be interpreted and refined by a council to serve its God-given purpose.
@@ReformingApologetics so why did the Council of Jerusalem do just that in Acts 15?
I note you didn't interact with anything I actually said.
@@renjithjoseph7135 Acts 15 doesn't interpret the law. Not sure where you get that from. It actually points the Gentiles to it...avoid sexual immortality and idolatry.
The question the meeting addressed was the applicability of Mosaic customs to converted Gentiles. Augustine handled the text well:
"So that compromise, by which neither Jews were to be forbidden nor Gentiles to be compelled, was kept by the apostles and decreed by a council. When this issue, you see, was agitating many people, troubling many people, a meeting was held in Jerusalem, and when all the apostles had assembled and the elders of the Church, that is, the presbyters and any preachers of the gospel and those in charge of Churches, it was enacted by common consent, under the Lord’s inspiration of course, that these things were neither to be forbidden to the Jews nor forced on the Gentiles. Many will recall that this is all written in the Acts of the Apostles; those who don’t recall it should read it. So this was a very very moderate, very very religious, very very careful compromise. If it had been ordained that these things were to be immediately given up and rejected, in the same way as sacrifices to idols were to be, then people wouldn’t believe that the one who had laid them down was the true God."
Saint Augustine, Sermons Discovered Since 1990, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 11, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997).
Page 7.
@@ReformingApologetics Acts 15: the Mosaic Law which God commands His people to follow is not applicable to this subset of new followers given the Incarnation and its meaning. This is determined by the Church Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Icon veneration: the "second commandment" in which God commands no images are allowed to be made and/or bowed to is not applicable to a subset of images given the Incarnation and its meaning. Determined by a Council inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Good idea to debate, I fear with so many rebuttals, one day you are going to rebut the Bible!