Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 8
Bercot highlights the later Nicaea (AD 785) endorsing veneration of images and anathematizing those who refuse, claiming Scripture and the early Church condemned images—how does this example test the claim that later “traditions” faithfully preserve apostolic teaching, and what does it suggest about the spiritual danger of declaring dissenters cursed?
Another way to ask: How does the later council that promoted honoring images challenge the idea that later traditions always protect the apostles’ teaching? What dangers come from declaring people “cursed” for disagreeing?

Direct Answer Bercot uses AD 785 to argue that later “traditions” can drift so far that they contradict Scripture and the early Church, while still claiming apostolic continuity. He suggests that anathematizing dissenters becomes spiritually dangerous when the Church blesses practices Scripture previously condemned.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the Church added “more and more extra-scriptural language” and even language “contrary to Scripture.”
  • Example: the 785 council taught images “should be set forth in the holy churches” and given “due salutation and honorable worship,” with incense and lights.
  • It justified this by saying: “the honor… paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents.”
  • It claimed continuity: “Thus we follow Paul… and… the holy fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received.”
  • It pronounced repeated curses: “We place under anathema those who do not do this… anathema… to those who call the sacred images idols.”
  • Bercot’s evaluation: “Scripture, as well as the early Church, had condemned the use of images. Now the Church condemned those who didn't use images.”
Discussion Follow-ups How do we tell the difference between faithful preservation and institutional “tradition” that overrules Scripture—and what happens to consciences when dissent is treated as damnable?