Craig Truglia vs. James White "Icon Veneration AS DEFINED by the Second Nicene Council is Apostolic." After watching this debate and seeing the responses by Catholics and Orthodox, I believe that there was a major misperception of what the resolution of the debate really was. I think many Catholics and Orthodox heard a long list of evidence of artwork and the religious depictions of Christ and the Saints, and thought that Truglia pulled off his job. But that would be to miss the crux of the debate, which James White kept his finger on. The crux of the debate was whether icon VENERATION being OBLIGATORY and NECESSARY for salvation was taught by the Apostles. Both White and Truglia both agreed on this major point: Nicaea 787's definition of icon veneration is PRECISELY that it is NECESSARY for salvation. So even if the viewer thinks otherwise, both White and Truglia were on the very same page: icon veneration is an essential practice for the Christian in his walk with God in order to make it to heaven, and this divine mandate goes back to the Apostolic imperatives. And so the job is not to show that artwork and depictions of Christ/Saints existed in early Christianity. The job is not to show that the veneration of artwork and depictions of Christ/Saints existed in early Christianity. That doesn't get Truglia to the touchdown, by HIS OWN self-proclaimed burden. He stood up and repeatedly said that Nicaea 787 made icon veneration an obligatory means to salvation, just as necessary as PRAYER is for salvation. In other words, Truglia believes that Nicaea 787 teaches that from the very beginning of the New Covenant, icon veneration was a necessary means to obtain eternal life. To make this practical, Truglia believes that on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles included the teaching that creative artists and painters are immediately required to make images for the purpose of saving the souls of the people baptized in Jerusalem by setting up the practice of icon veneration, because the latter is necessary for the Christian life and necessary to obtain heaven. In case what I'm saying is not clear enough, let me give you a perfect analogy by which to understand the burden that Truglia willingly put on himself. The "Holy Kiss." Who can deny that early Christians practiced the Holy Kiss? We read of it Scripture (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:2; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14). We read of it in the early Christian fathers (Justin Martyr, Athenagorus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, Hippolytus's Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Constitutions, Athanasius's Festal letters, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pope Innocent I, etc. etc.). Ok, so the Apostolic historicity of the Holy Kiss is quite clear, and I'm not aware of any historian or theologian who would dispute this. And yet, do we have evidence that the holy kiss is necessary for salvation, such that if you don't do it you are lost? The evidence of the existence of icons in the Apostolic age and in early Christianity (especially before Nicaea) is nowhere near the evidence for the Holy Kiss. But EVEN IF we did have the same amount of evidence, or even more, of icons during the Apostolic age and early Christianity, it would still not get us to the resolution of this debate between White and Truglia. Did Truglia get us to the place where he proved the Apostles taught that icon veneration was specifically necessary to do by divine mandate in order to get to heaven? No. Truglia took the positive position (the affirmative, proposer, claimant) and, as such, bore the burden of proof. James White had zero burden of proof because he simply took the negative, i.e., arguing that the proposer didn't prove what he was proposing. Having said that, I think Truglia was well-spoken, very respectful, entertaining, charismatic, and did an absolutely fantastic job proving that religious artwork existed in Church history, even before Nicaea 325. To be fair to Truglia, he did not demand that the way in which 9th century icon veneration looked would be perfectly the same in all places and at all times, but he attempted to show that there is a bare minimum-- an image and religious respect to the prototype through the image. All of that information was done well and he certainly did his homework for that particular task. One particular Eastern Orthodox theologian (Byzantinist, even) that Truglia cited in support of the existence of icons prior to the 7th century was Fr. Andrew Louth. Interestingly enough, Louth says elsewhere that the NECESSITY of venerating icons would not have been found in the 4th century: “𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘣𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘩-𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘩-𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩-𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴..” [“Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category?” in 𝘖𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘹𝘺 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦: 𝘈 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘏𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘑𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷 𝘗𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘌𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘉𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘥𝘢𝘺 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 47] youtube.com/watch?v=tK5qq87U…

What has become obvious in recent years (though it was visible for decades, and identifiable even longer before) is that division is looming in the Catholic Church. And hiding this does no one any good. It might be a division between polar opposites, even. It might several groups. But here I think there is a clean break between two groups. How can I describe this ? There is something lopsided about being drawn to Catholicism not because of its faithful transmission and guardianship of the original deposit of Christian teaching delivered by the Apostles, but because of how powerfully the Church can adapt through the progressive development of doctrine, drawing on a continual influx of new insights that the “immature lights” of the Apostles, Saints, and Fathers supposedly never knew for two thousand years. It sickens me to see Catholic apologists focusing so much on the advantage of institutional power that can creatively fix unity in its exploration of new ideas, ever correcting the Fathers of Christianity. It sickens me even more to see clergy throwing down the card of authority to embolden their attainment of novelty while ridiculing the “fundamentalist” (and here, I do not mean the TLM trad, but just even the conservative Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant who unreservedly believes every word of Scripture). “Well, at least they can develop doctrine with power and authority. At least there is a final court that can tell us which new developments are definitive and which are not. The modern world has brought in so much good that our spiritual ancestors, as great as they were, simply didn’t know about and couldn’t see.” Is that what we think souls are drawn to? People today who feel drawn to step out of the darkness of the fallen world and genuinely enter the light of Christ are not looking for what best accommodates modern humanity. They are thirsting for the school of Christ. They want to be His students, learn His teaching, follow His ways, and finally hear that they were good and faithful servants. They want to absorb the faith once delivered, not ever developed. That is really it. “Oh but Ybarra you don’t really understand development.” Of course that’s the response. Please spare us the rehearsal. Newman and many of his theological predecessors are rolling in their graves. If you don’t have the eyes to see it, you might never see it.