Apologetical defense of Synod of Elvira ruling on pictures?

[BrownR]

Can anyone provide a good link or apologetic argument on why Catholics can ignore the ruling at the Synod of Elvira in Spain which specifically forbade pictures in Churches?

How exactly does one reconcile the differences in ruling on the subject as can be seen in the Council of Nicea?

The best that I’ve been able to find is that scholars assume that the pictures in Churches ruling had something to do with a proclivity for idol worship in Spain at the time, but this isn’t as convincing as I’d like. Are there any other defenses? I don’t understand why priestly celibacy is to be taken from this council and used, yet the use of pictures in Churches can be counter ruled at Nicea? Is that because Nicea was an ecumenical council where Elvira was a regional council? Where does infallibility fit in to all of this?

Anyway, links are fine. I’m just looking for a good argument for why this particular ruling at Elvira can be specifically ignored. It seems to be a frequent use of Protestant apologists in their argument against the veneration of saints and use of religious images. Thanks.

 

[VociMike]

I am not knowledgable about the details, but I sure don’t see a problem here. The Church does not require a local council statement to impose priestly celibacy in one of its rites. Nor is the Church bound by a local council statement regarding images on church walls. The fact that the Church happens to partially uphold one position while rejecting another position of a local council does not signify anything at all.

 

[Todd_Easton]

There is an article on the “Council of Elvira” in the online 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia that briefly discusses this topic.

 

[Della]

There is an article on the “Council of Elvira” in the online 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia that briefly discusses this topic.

Thanks for the link, Todd. I’d never heard of this Council before–there’s so much to learn about in our Catholic faith, isn’t there?

Anyway, as I read it, this council was just for Spanish Christians and was only disciplinary for them, which means no doctrine or dogmas were confirmed. Am I right? That would mean that a) it wasn’t binding on the whole Church and b) that the disciplines could be rescinded as the Spanish bishops thought fit. Yes?

And for the further benefit of the OP’s question, wasn’t priestly celibacy dealt with in other Church councils with wider authority?

 

[BrownR]

Thanks for the link, Todd. I’d never heard of this Council before–there’s so much to learn about in our Catholic faith, isn’t there?

Anyway, as I read it, this council was just for Spanish Christians and was only disciplinary for them, which means no doctrine or dogmas were confirmed. Am I right? That would mean that a) it wasn’t binding on the whole Church and b) that the disciplines could be rescinded as the Spanish bishops thought fit. Yes?

And for the further benefit of the OP’s question, wasn’t priestly celibacy dealt with in other Church councils with wider authority?

Here is another good link that elaborates on the subject. It basically feeds into the Iconoclastic heresy. Yes, I believe you are correct in inferring that the particular image ruling was not binding on all Christians of the Church considering that this was a regional council. The problem lies in a Protestant attack on the fact that we can take one ruling from this council such as priestly celibacy, and consider it meritorious and applicable to all clergy (Nicea), yet we can summarily dismiss the image ruling. Now, the most practical argument would be that the image ruling was to benefit the region of Spain, but the problem with this is that we simply have no information as to why this was specifically ruled upon in Spain. We don’t know if there was a problem with pagan worship of images or not; we can only assume this to be the case. There seems to be evidence from historical records that this might have been the case, but whether Spanish pagans had any more propensity for this type of worship over other regions is another question entirely. It’s worth noting that there are a few early Church fathers that expressed concern against using images of Christ in worship. However, I think it is clear that most of the Church fathers had no problem with the issue. In the end, the majority of the “veneration of images” Catholic defense lies in examples of the use of images in the early Church, even though most of the early Church fathers were silent on the matter, and approval can only be implied through their seemingly accepted use. There are also various examples in scripture which would seem to imply acceptable use of images.The next evidence comes from the uncovered Roman Christian catacombs which show copious use of Christian images (late 2nd and 3rd centuries). In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter to Catholics since Nicea was a binding ecumenical council whereas Elvira was a general and regional council, but it would be nice if we had some specific information on exactly why images were forbidden in Elvira. It would make for a stronger case in my opinion.

Basically this entire exercise for me has been to find the strongest and most convincing defense of “veneration of Christian images” due to the fact that it is a commonly attacked Catholic teaching.

If anyone has any more information or links, please feel free to post them or to correct me on any of my assumptions. Thanks.