The Seventh Ecumenical Council

Jonah Saller
PO Box 363
Ingleside, IL 60041-0363

———————————————————————

MAIN GEAR

———————————————————————

This page may contain affiliate links. All that means is that I get a small commission for all who buy products through the links. This helps my ministry grow! Thanks!

———————————————————————

[catfinity]

The problem is that Nicaea 2 says that an image is a mediator to the thing depicted. For the first few centuries of the Church, this was something that Christians as a whole rejected. It was an idea used by pagans to explain their worship of idols actually being the worship of a god, which many Christians argued against in their debates with pagans. An image might represent the prototype, so it has symbolic significance, but it is not itself a mediator to the prototype.

[georgeluke]

11:23 on hyperdulia v excessive veneration, how do you understand the distinction?

[epicfailure]

If you are interested in reading more into the topic of early christian's and their relationship to art, I would recommend a rather concise book by Paul Corby Finney called "The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians on Art". He directly addresses the objections that Dr Ortlund raises with regards to the christian apologists and their seeming antipathy towards images. His thesis synthesis the christian apologists and the archaeological finds by taking into account genre, the socio-political climate, and the initial indistinguishability between christians and the common population. The book challenges common apologetics on both sides of the image controversy. Finney really contextualizes christianity within that era. Definitely worth a read.

[aajaifenn]

Jesus in his person belongs to the Godhead . So veneration of Jesus's image should be latria and not dulia especially considering that the veneration of the image is supposed to pass on to the prototype in heaven (in the theology of Nicea 2 ). Veneration of Jesus's Icon hence should always be latria .

[JustinD]

So in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy where it says
"to them who do not worship the Cross of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ as the salvation and glory of the whole world and as that which annulled and utterly destroyed the machinations and weapons of the enemy and thereby redeemed creation from the idols and manifested victory to the world, but hold the Cross to be a tyrannical weapon; to such men, Anathema"
Would you say that use of "worship" implies veneration?

[TheJamesMackay]

Where did you get your icons on the wall behind you?

[nicolaalbury]

Would you say there's a difference between Doctrine and Practice? If so, wouldn't your explanation of the Reformation's reaction to the 'Romish Doctrine' of images be more a condemnation of practice rather than of doctrine? I'm not sure if your explanation is sufficient to get around the 39 Articles condemnation of the 'doctrine' (which I would argue is the same doctrine you are affirming). Can you show me where Rome ever says we should worship/pay full adoration/latreia to images in their doctrines or dogmas? Not trying to argue just trying to clarify :)

[IHSACC]

Thank you again for your videos. I hate to be the Anglo-Catholic stickler again, but what you said about the decree of the Council not mentioning how the images were to be venerated is not correct. It specifically mentions incense, lights, and “proskunesin” in Greek, which includes the idea of both kissing and bowing. All of these things, based on biblical precedents—as they show—are declared to be not just acceptable but actually encouraged, and to some degree essentially mandated. The anathemas are against all those who refuse to honor the images. That being said, I agree that there can be and have been excesses. But that is not the most common problem in Anglicanism. Many Anglicans are still squeamish about anything “Catholic”—veneration of Mary, images, and saints, afterlife purgation, etc. despite these things being ubiquitous in the Fathers. Like you and many others, I’ve gone back and forth on the Articles. In the ACC we are not bound by them, of course, but at times I have thought that the Newman readings of them are tenable—I.e. that they are correcting abuses rather than throwing out babies with the bath water, as so many of the reformers did. But if they are wrong, it is not that important. They are not an ecumenical Council. Besides, the original 10 Articles are best of all, because they were very explicitly correcting abuses and maintained the Catholic elements. The best “spin” I can try to put on the Reformation in England is that for some things it was like a Father who took away a child’s toy, saying, “You can’t play with this anymore until you learn how to use it properly. You’ve been getting hurt.” By the 19th century God saw that they were ready to play with the toys again. I don’t know if that’s helpful or not, but sometimes I think it’s one way to look at it.