In his recent book on the Roman Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints (which also touches upon icon veneration), Karlo Broussard wrote:
A Protestant may be willing to accept
the above conclusion that the early Fathers weren’t condemning the veneration
of religious images in and of itself. However, he might argue that the early
Father’s statements, like the ones quoted above, indicate that image veneration
wasn’t a Christian practice.
Notice that Just, Irenaeus, and Clement
never offer the Christian practice of image veneration as an alternative to
what they’re condemning. You’d think, so the argument might go, that if the
early Christians were practicing image veneration, they would have offered
their pagan correspondents the Christian practice as a replacement for the
pagan idolatrous practices. Since they don’t, it seems reasonable to conclude
that image veneration wasn’t a practice of the earliest days of Christianity.
This being the case, we as Christian’s shouldn’t engage in such a practice.
The first thing to note in respond is
that this objection takes the same form as the objection from chapter four
concerning the lack of evidence from the first- and second-century Fathers for
the invocation of the saints’ intercession. Consequently, the answers
given there apply as well.
. . .
There is one answer, however, that
applies specifically to this objection and is worth highlighting. Given that pagan
culture of the first few centuries was stepped in idol worship, which involved
the belief that their deities dwelt within the idols, it’s possible that the
early Christians shied away from offering the Christian practice of image veneration
to keep their pagan correspondents from thinking that Christ and the saints dwell
within their images. The pagan would have been prone to transfer their beliefs
about idols over the Christian images.
So perhaps the absence of evidence of
Christian image veneration in the first few centuries is not evidence for the absence
of the practice after all. But, as we’ve said above, even if it is, that doesn’t
mean we ought to refrain from adopting the practice. (Karlo Brossard, The Saints
Pay for You: How the Christians in Heaven Help Us Here on Earth [El Cajon,
Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2024], 162-63)
Notice that the implied principle is
that we ought to reject any religious practice that’s not found in the first
and second centuries. The question is, why? For most Protestants, a lack of
such evidence proves that such a practice is a historical “accretion” or “innovation”
and thus not part of historic Christian life.
But the lack of evidence of the
invocation of the saints in the first and second centuries doesn’t mean it
wasn’t part of the historic Christian faith. First- and second-century sources
for Christian life are scarce. It’s unreasonable to think that all the aspects
of Christian life wouldn’t go beyond the boundaries of such a limited pool of sources.
Furthermore, there may very well have been early records of the practice, and
they’re simply lost to us.
. . .
Now, let’s assume for argument’s sake
that the invocation of the saints wasn’t a Christian practice in the
first and second centuries and, in the words of Ortlund, was a “historical
accretion.” Why must we reject a religious practice that’s not concretely part
of early Christian life? (Karlo Brossard, The Saints Pay for You: How the
Christians in Heaven Help Us Here on Earth [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers
Press, 2024], 107, 108)
Compare
and contrast this with the constant chest-thumping Roman apologists engage in
when they claim that their dogmas (and yes, icon veneration is a de fide dogma)
are apostolic and can be found throughout the early Church. Also, this is
contrary to the claims of the Council of Trent. Note the following from session
25 (December 1563):
984 [DS 1821] The holy Synod commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and its administration, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and apostolic Church, received from primeval times of the Christian religion, and with the consensus of opinion of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred Councils, they above all diligently instruct the faithful on the intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Savior, to have recourse to their prayers, assistance, and support; and that they who deny that those saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, think impiously, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them, to intercede for each of us individually, is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God, and inconsistent with the honor of the “one mediator of God and men Jesus Christ” [cf. 1 Tim. 2:5], or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven. (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, ed. Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner [trans. Roy J. Deferrari; St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 298-99)
Note that such practices are said to be “received from
primeval times of the Christian religion” and “with the consensus of opinion of
the holy Fathers.”
Roman Catholicism, at least how it is presented by her
pop-level apologists, is nothing short of a shell game: something promised, but
when you examine the facts, it is wanting.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
