ChristiansUnite Forums

If you'd risen from the dead, literally, after being impaled on a wooden cross, why would you want people in your honor to keep you up there impaled on that cross??

What is the history of "the crucifix", when I thought the whole point of Jesus in the first place was the resurrection part--that is, He is risen.

Why would we want to still depict Him as crucified.

Could keeping our Savior as symbolized still crucfied, be sado-masochism, or indulging the death of someone just for the sake of the death--sort of gloating--almost as if we're rejoicing that he's up there on the cross?  All of those about Him, the Sanhedrin, the Roman soldiers, mocked Him even as He hung there.

Few of us can imagine the horror off what Jesus is going through.

By keeping Him there, as symbolized, aren't we sort of mocking Him?


     :'(

I can understand what you are saying here.  Lets not forget however, that his death and punishment represents just how ugly sin that we commit really is.  Without his death, we have no forgivness of sin.  Just as he died for our sins, and we die to sins ourselves daily, as he rose from the dead we have faith and the blessed hope that we too will be raised from the dead.

Jesus himself retained wounds he received, and showed them to Thomas.  Jesus will show his nail pierced hands to the children of Israel when He returns to earth, and they will morn over Him.

As for a crucifix being bad...I don't think it is, as long as the symbol itself does not become an object of worship.  His sacrifice is just as important as his ressurection.  IMO wearing a crucifix is not a desire to keep Jesus wounded and bleeding (although some may see it that way), rather, it should be a reminder of the price He paid for us.  In either case, I wouldn't let the idea of people wearing one interupt your faith in christ.  Whether a person wears one or not will certainly not make difference on judgment day.

Grace and Peace!

As one who was raised in the Catholic church, from my youth, and understand well the faith works gospel that this institution teaches, it wasn't until came to saving faith in Jesus, that I came to an understanidng of the symbolism of the crucifix.

Since this institution teaches one must believe in Jesus to be saved, this in itself in not enough to keep one saved, one must obeserve the seven sacraments, keep the ten commandments, and be obedient to the teachings of the mother church, in effect work out ones own salavtion, thus Jesus is shown hanging on the cross, as a reminder of what he has done,

He has done His part, Now you need to do your part......

I am sure they, have their own teaching of what the criucifix symbolizes to them, but this is clearly what came to me, from all that I a remember learn while growing up in this church.

It definitely is not a biblical symbol, since the scriptures clearly teach a resurrected savior, and an empty cross.

I can't imagine how the crucifix glorifies Jesus.


Petro

Hey Petro,

Again, I can understand this point of view.  I don't put a lot of value on it either way.  

To say it simply, God is interested in whats in the heart.  Once this is in the right place, the Lord will address the other things.

Man, Sym your opening sentence reminds me of a Bill Hicks quote: "When Jesus comes back, do you think he EVER wants to see another cross again?"

Here is Baptist country, we here that a lot. Once, a lady went to a church with a set of those earrings, and the pastor told her to take them off or leave because "Jesus ain’t on that thing any more." I think it is an unbiblical phase that just caught on, like WWJD.

Now, Sym, this is a legitimate concern. Petty, but still legitimate. I ask you, what saves you, Jesus or the Cross? Jesus. So, shouldn't be have something depicting Jesus, not the Roman Electric chair? Mocking Jesus would be if we had him on the cross, with his tongue out and his eyes replaced with X's. Mocking Jesus would be putting him on a Hallmarking singing Figurine where he his bobbing his head and singing "Always look on the bright side of light." I could go on, but I think you get it.

As long as we get the idea, I really don't think it matters weather we like our Jesus statue on the cross or off the cross. As 2nd Tim said, we aren't worshipping the cross. It isn't an Idol, it isn't the object of our worship. As Petro said, it isn't in the bible. The bible does not address displying a cross or fish.

Really, I don't think it matter.

Allow me to ask you a question tibby.

Do you bow, or bend the knee  and do the sign of the cross, before the crusifix??

Most Catholics do...  and that is worship.

When you make these kinds of statements, and refer to yourself as Catholic, it begs questions like this, to clarify, that which does not jive with what Catholic theology teaches.

Now perhaps, you haven't clarified, the kind of catholicism you follow.

However,  I am reminded that a man by the name of Edward Irving, who was instrumental in begining the Irvingite movement in the 1830's, began the Catholic Apostolic church in this country.

If you are not an offshoot of Roman Catholicism, is this the Catholic church you belong to.


How does your church define an idol?


Blessings,

Petro

Ah, Petro, I love ya, man :) always an issue with my posts. Hey, at least you haven’t corrected the grammar and spelling for a while! ;D

Anyways, bowing, I personally do not see bowing as worship. Bowing has many functions. It can be worship, or submission, or respect, any number of things. In this case, it is respect.

lol, I know we have covered the topic of which group I’m with. I’m a Member of the CEC (website on my profile, beautiful site, by the way), not the CAC. The CAC is in fact a spin-off of the RCC, leaving Rome in 1930 to follow a much more Charismatic form. Their line of Succession is still valid. The CEC was founded separate from it, with no knowledge of the CAC. I haven’t heard of Irving, but the CEC does have official ties with the Brazilian Church. Mostly, they talk about Brazil when referring the CAC in the CEC. I’m guessing Irving is/was one of the American Bishops. Either way, brilliant deduction, the CAC and CEC do have many similarities, I’m surprised you noticed.

The CEC is a group of Convergence Catholics, the foremost church of the convergence movement, and one of the largest growing denominations. Now, the CEC does have some connections with the CAC. The CEC liturgy is a little bit more Anglican in appearance then the CAC, but the CEC still follows much of Rome’s ways. There is no official connection to Rome because, as the Archdeacon put it, Rome normally doesn’t consort with Denominations that are less then half as old as the current Pope ;D The Head of the CEC, Archbishop Randy Adler, has a background on the opposite end of the Christian spectru :)m; he is former CI, and Bill Hammond’s right hand man. Needless to say, ol’ Bill doesn’t exactly like Adler anymore. But, Adler was delivered from... I mean he left ;D the Independent Charismatic circles to start the CEC  Now you know... the rest of the story... Sorry, couldn’t help my self. But, in short, we do have connections to the CAC, but I am not CAC.

I define idol as a physical object of worship, or a thing worshipped over God. My church is still young, and doesn’t have an official dictionary... yet ;)

tibby,

I appreaciate your openness in answering my questions,

Thank you,

Blessings,

Petro

I too have a few questions, and it is in no way intended to perpetuate an argument.

1.  If a young man walked into your church on Sunday morning, and he was wearing a t-shirt with a pentagram on it, would you send him away?  
2.  If another man walked into your church on Sunday morning wearing a t-shirt with christ hanging on a cross, would you send him away?  
3.  And finally, if a 3rd man came into your church wearing an empty cross, would you send him away?

Grace and Peace!

Petro- any time

Tim- Very good point.

2dTim,

If you are trying to compare symbols, to the crucifix, to determine what is acceptable in a church?

I don't know why you would ask such a question, the person wearing the t-shirt with any synmbol, is not the object being bowed or kneeled and prayed to.

In the case of ther Catholic church they do, bow and kneel before symbols, the crucifix is one of many, so are statutes and pictures.

And certainly I don't know of any Christian who would do either to a symbol on any shirt.

So you can't compare the matter to what is or is not done in Christian churches.

I know the argument is always made to defend the worship of these, by those defending what is done, by claiming protestants pray in a sanctuary which may have a symbol or stained glass depiction of an angel or some other personage, but I must point out the difference is not the symbol but the expression of what is considered worship of the object.

Would you be qualified to define between worship, obeyance (a form of submission), paying respects, to a relic.

Blessings, Petro

Petro,

Perhaps we are missing each others point here.  :-[

I was not trying to get to the point of what is acceptable to worship.  And maybe thats what you are driving at, or rather if it is acceptable at all?  I do not feel it is right to worshop anything other than God himself.

What I was getting at with my previous questions, was that God is interested in the condition of the heart of individuals.  Not their outward appearance.  So I think we are both making blind points here  ???

From the 3 hypothetical individuals I mentioned, the symbolism adorned on their shirts from Gods perspective would not make a difference.  It would be the condition of their hearts that brought them into a place looking for answers.   From mens perspective, some might view the one wearing a pentagram as disrespectful and turn him away which would be wrong in my view.  Some churches might even turn away the fellow wearing crucified Jesus thinking this was disrespectful.   In any case, there is no way for men to determine the spiritual state of an individual by their adornments.  There may be clues (the fruits they bear), but only God is able to see the heart of men.

So back to the original question.  Are we mocking him by having a crucifix showing his death, whether that be neckless, picture, emblem on a shirt?   Personally, I don't believe so.   It makes no difference in my faith or belief in what he did for me whether I have one of those things or not.   If a persons heart is in the right place God will be able to direct them to apropriate attire and such.  If the heart is not in the right place, all the perceived righteous dressing, attire, or spiritual symbolism in the world wont amount to a hill of beans.

Sorry if you misundertood my questions brother, I believe I misunderstood your's as well.

Grace and Peace!

2nd Timothy  If the heart is not in the right place, all the perceived righteous dressing, attire, or spiritual symbolism in the world wont amount to a hill of beans.


Well now see, this to me is precisely the reason all of that wouldamount to a great hill of beans.


That is sort of my original point.  If Jesus is Risen from the dead, all of these "accoutrements" would seem to be irrelevant.  And if one of those accoutrements even has him still depicted as losing(not winning), i.e., the crucifix, I would especially tend to find that, at least, "ambiguous"--highly inconsistent with the theme of the whole enterprise in the first place, that is, victory.   Triumphal Roman Generals didn't ride into Rome depicting their losses.  The SuperBowl winners don't repeatedly instant replay their fumbles.   ::)

For quite sometime, I agreed with you 2nd Tim, it didn't make a difference.  I'm just not seeing in the light of such victory the relevance of the "anti-victory".  But, of course, I see your and the others' point here.  

Thanks also for yours, Tibby.   Very nice response.  I will have to think about that one.  Meanwhile, I fail to see how "bowing" is not in fact worshiping, as the scripture that says, "every knee shall bow" would seem strongly to imply worship for sure; not to mention I think that was the reason Daniel et.al. were thrown into the fiery furnace, b/c they refused to bow in that case to (Iraqii? hehe) idols?

Yes, I guess it's a frequent criticism of the Catholic church--the crucifix, that is.

Hmmm, I guess I can agree with this to some degree.


Lets not forget however, that Gods greatest work was done, through the frailty of his Son.  


Grace and Peace!

Glad my post was though provoking. On another note, I don’t see HOW bowing is automatically worship. Every knee shall bow, yes. Do a sword search on bow. People bowed to kings and Patriarchs and you will even find people bowing down to an alter or 2. Is this worship of the Leader, or Fathers, or structure? Of course not. Yes, the bible does, in places, implies bowing is worship, but it also implies respect and submission. There is a lot of bowing going on, and not all of it is worship. When the bible IS referring you bowing as worship, you will normally find “and worship” comes after it. Even in the Story with Daniel and his boys, they say they will not bow down or worship. If bowing is worship, why would they specify “bow down and worship”

Of course, these are just my thoughts, I haven’t done massive research on the topic. But if we are using the bible as a dictionary, lets look at other verses, where bowing isn’t an act of worship, but of respect and reverence.



Was Jesus’ death a Victory or a defeat? What it a touchdown or touchback? I think those a great examples, and a very good point. I guess you never played football in High School, Tim (or any sport for that matter)? After a game, win or lose, you feel pretty frail for several days! Happens after a good workout, too.   Running for miles, then Drill after drill after drill, then running some mro,e they weight lifting, then a second work-out they claim is a cool-down (Yeah, right). To go home around 9 at night, and if you have the strength, to draw a hot bath to soak in. You feel like You've been run over. A 4 year old would beat the fire out of you. But, that wasn't a bad thing. You are healthier, and stronger, and tougher for it. Jesus' frailty wasn't a failure.

Hey guys,

Actually, I did play football in high school!  :)   So I can relate to this idea very well.   If we must use this sort of analogy to make our point so be it...

Jesus stood in the pocket patiently, knowing the hit was coming, thus, giving his team the touchdown pass of ressurection.  ;)  Not bad huh?  
Althought the team had a victory, it could not have been done without him standing firm in the pocket and taking the hit.  In my view, the play of the game!  

Now that we have had our analogies, lets see how the bible describes it...

Rev 5:6-9
6  Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
7  He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
8  And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9  And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
(NIV)

Obviously this play made the highlight reels in Revelation.

I will gracfully bow out of this discussion here.  If one feels that a crucifix is wrong, then I would recommend that person refrain from having one.  Others will not feel the same conviction.  Scripture does not indicate either way on this.  If its a thing of worship, then clearly one is in the wrong.  If not, then work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Phil 2:12-13
12 [-----]continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
13  for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
(NIV)

Verse 13 makes my point crystal clear.

Blessings brothers!

Actually, I did play football in high school!  ;)


Scripture does not indicate either way on this.    ::)


Glad my post was though provoking.

Maybe we're taking the Catholic thing too seriously?  Tibby demonstrates a definite allegiance, or loyalty--rather taken with it, perhaps as if you might be thinking about the priesthood yourself?

I don’t see HOW bowing is automatically worship.

Context, my dear Watson, context.  8)  

The "context", of your earlier example, of walking into the sanctuary, and bowing the knee to a crucifix; your interpretation was that this was not necessarily worship.

Respectfully, I must demure.   8)  ;)

The context of that whole event, walking into a sanctuary(a place of "worship", is it not?), bespeaks worship!!  (Er, uh, unless there's something else going on there I don't know about. ;D)

Tim Lets not forget however, that Gods greatest work was done, through the frailty of his Son.

Yes, that is true.  It was all God's doing, and through no "might" of Jesus.

Tibby Jesus' frailty wasn't a failure.

Yes, Jesus became stronger because of all the trauma exerted on Him--ultimately, through God's doing, that is, raising Him from the dead.

So the crucifix symbolizes frailty, weakness, even "failure"(temporary)--and, if Jesus hadn't been raised, we wouldn't even be sitting here talking about this(during this time, the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, thousands were crucified--Jesus would have just been one more in a now long forgotten litany...).

It's b/c Jesus WAS raised, though, that we even ARE here talking about this--not just that he was crucified.  But the whole context of  contemporary Christian reality, and our worship, is one of victory.  Any symbols would seem to want to commemorate this(thus, a bare cross)--the victory, not the loss?

Well, I don't wish to beat a dead horse, so I'll shuddup.  :-X

From the human perspective, fraility, weakness and failure is all that the cross can symbolize.

I could never agree with this since it is clear He obeyed and willingingly went to the cross, and it is clear by His obedience many be made righteous.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb 10:14.

Viewing Jesus as frail, and weak and His physical death a failure, reflects our own opinion of ourselves, but in the proper context, God was manifested in the flesh, though His human nature showed a reluctance to go through with His sacrificial death, it was not because He considered his physical death at all, but the idea of being separated from His Father for the equivelence of an eternity in hell, for the sins of His people.

Failure is not what an empty cross depicts at all, though the effigy of a man hanging on it, may very well depict it.

But since the Lord has risen, this symbol is one of power, strength, glory and victory, the scriptures reminding us His soul was not left in Hell, neither did His flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:31)

If this be so, why reflect on the things which the crucifix symbolizes, the cross itself is sufficiently symbolic of His life, death, and resurrection, to recall that God was manifested in the flesh to take away the sins of the world, and the victory was obtained by His death, and,

being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rom 6:9-10

Blessings

Petro









He could have avoided His own sacrificial death, having full Faith in His heveanly Father, though he

Could be… ;D I have always, from a very young age, had a desire to follow in my fathers foots steps and get Ordained. But after we joined CEC, I found the priesthood very much to my liking. Unlike many Protestant group that just hand out Ordination papers, this group requires a Bachelors before you are even considered for it (with a exceptions, of course). Before we joined this, my father was handed 3 different Ordinations on 3 different occasions. The fact that he has 2 bachelors and a Masters didn’t even come into the picture! I’m sorry, but I feel the Clergy need to be educated men. I’d want to be  part of the clergy as Christ’s Church, the Bishop’s church. The place is great. The Archdeaon has a map of Mordor and one of Middle-earth in the far wall of his office. They are also involves in Fencing and Kendo, and they keep there gear at the church ;D I once compared it to a toy chest “Well, Fr. Reid, I believe you guys have fully grasped the ‘play before the lord’ Concept ;)”

I also think there needs to be a better Church Government, ESPECIALLY for Charismatic. While my church was still Penta-baptist, the former pastor (retired a few years ago) was trying to start a network of the full gospel churches in the area. Some pastors flat out said “No, this is MY church!” It is like, WHAT?! What do you think Paul would have said if Timothy told him that? Ha, I would love the be a fly on the wall of the talk Timothy gets when Paul ride back into town! Do you think Paul would have been to happy if the Corinthian’s or Ephesians’ tried to pull a stunt like that? I’ve seen the mess these Independent Churches can cause. Without any accountability to a larger church body, one of 2 things happens. A- The Pastor because a mini-pope, completely infallible, or B- the Church people have the pastor on a leash. If this where to happen in a Catholic-style set up, we have a Bishop, who is the Pastor of the Pastors of his area. We just call him, and he works it out. I’ve seen it work before. Someone was causing trouble in a church. The kind of gossip-trouble that Happens all the time in Independent churches, and causes major splits. One call to the Bishop, and He was there, Archdeacon at his side, and they settled things in a weekend. In an Independent Church, this would have gone on for ages, a festering sire, till something hit the fan, and all hell breaks lose.

Yeah, I think it is safe to say I demonstrate a definite allegiance. Do you know how many church I’ve been in that spilt and break up and fall apart? More then 19 year old should. A LOT more. In my short life time, I’ve seen Pastors (ex-pastors, that is) who are married, commit adultery with another parishioners wife. I’ve seen the guy come into replace him, and started a campaign against my father to get him out of the Elder’s office, then go after the rest of the Elder’s, one by one. I’ve seen people Hate a new pastor because he was too young (if 30 is young), and cause a church rift. I’ve seen  people leave the church, there last words being “Call me when you straighten it out.” And these are just things from church I have been to. Not counting guys who claim God told them to divorce there wife and marry another, and STILL get the preach on TBN. Not counting “Bishop” with or “Prophet” that attack the Catholic system because of their use of titles. Gee, T.D. Jakes, where do you think the work “bishop” came from?!

But, this is more then you asked for.  :-X Yes, I am considering the Priesthood. Back to the topic at hand.

So, everything that happens in the sanctuary is worship? Lets go back to football. The field is the place to play, but just because I’m on the grass, does that mean I’m playing? No. Not everything done in a sanctuary is worship. Because you bow before a cross doesn’t mean you are worshiping that cross.  When you get right down to it, it would be impossible NOT to bow to something physical. No matter where you turn, there will be something blocking your path. If we took the cross away, would you guys would tell us we worship the wall? If we did it outside, would you tell us we worship that tree a mile down the road? No, of course not. Bowing in front of something does not instantly denote worship. Read in context, People bow to a lot more then God. It doesn’t make it worship. To become an OT Priest, you would bow before a high priest to get the oil poured on you, wouldn‘t you? Is that worship to the high priest? The ref is on the field in football, doesn’t mean he is playing football. He may be playing a game with your team, but he isn’t playing football.

Personally, I think Ref’s should have to play the losing team after a game. I think games would be more fair ;D

tibby,


I know what you mean, this is perceived by most people today.

What with all the psychology one needs to learn to build a profitable church,the emphasis is more on the required subjects, rather than scripture.

I am sure if Peter or John showed up in a church today, and desired to speak, they would be asked for their credentials.

Even when Peter stood with John before the elders of Israel, these educated men;

..... when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Acys 4:13)

Somehow I don't see, what education has to do with preaching the gospel, except maybe to learn how to read and write.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.  Jhn 6:45

I think the man of God, should strive to learn the scriptures, and forgo, the classes which do not have anything to do with scriptures, or church history, why fill ones head with nonsense.

Petro

Yeah, Peter and James where not. But, out of everyone in the bible, who wrote the most books? Paul, a learned man. No, you don’t need a Masters to be intelligent ,and 4 years at a Seminary doesn’t make you a godly man. But boy, I think if you looked into it, you would find the majority of intelligent men have College Degrees.  And to understand the bible, you don’t even have to be a full high School grad. However, it helps. I’m a test away from being one semester finished with college, and I can already tell, it takes work. It graduate, you develop a work ethic. People skills, as well. You have study group, and meetings with professors. You learn better study and research habits. No, having a piece of paper on your walks doesn’t automatically make you a great man of god, nor a smart man, but it will help. On top of that you really don’t grasp your own ignorance till you go to college. I’m in a class and I think to my self “Oh, THAT is how it works. Everything makes since now!” I learned REALLY fast I don’t know even a quarter of the stuff I thought I did. It isn’t just the time, it is the experience, the life lessons you learn.

Yes, I have meet men who never went to college and are smarter then the average graduate, and I have met idiots who have Masters. College, I think, it something everyone should experience. My very short time there has only furthered my walk in ways I didn’t know it could.

As for Church History, we have to study it. If you don’t know where you have been, how do you know where you are going? Besides, you seem to enjoy the RCC’s history ;) ;D

It's easy to confuse education with maturity.

The church needs mature men(and women ;D).  An elder or leader has to be mature.

Education can provide some of that.  You can "technically" learn many of the pitfalls unique to leadership, which is what education is, and can help you avoid.

But education is a temptation to pride--"knowledge puffeth up".  And so there is always that increased risk.

Maturity, on the other hand, has something education can only tell you about--gravity.   Your feet on the ground.  Some young educated folk do have gravity.  But they typically are that way naturally--they are just born with it.  They would have that gravity, educated or not.  Education for them is merely a development of what already is there.  Some old educated folk are as stupid as a firstgrader(no ofrense to the firsgraders   :P).

You've certainly been exposed to a lot, Tibby, and for someone only yet 19?   And you've had to think through a lot. It's "colorful", what you discribe, but certainly not very flattering of a "Christian" tradition, protestant or Catholic.  :-\

One obscure movie I stumbled across, depicting an athletic, protestant minister, small town, and the temptations he encounters(getting his picture on the cover of Time magazine), the regional bishop, the church members:  "Cold Turkey", a Norman Lear screenplay, so it's satire, definitely funny, but food for thought too, about a small town that tries to quit smoking in order to win a sweepstakes wager by big tobacco.  The minister spearheads the contest.

But you cover a lot there, Tibby, in what you describe.  Alot of contradictions in whatever church one happens to be in.
Norman Lear zeroes right in on it--people going to sleep in the church pews(and a fly buzzing into one guy's open mouth  ;D), camera shots showing a portly lady adjusting her girdle( ;D), behind the scenes payoffs and your typical competing ambitions of the various folk.

   :-X

Are we not to remember and show His death till He comes by partaking in the communion bread and drink of the fruit of the vine? This memorial is not done with man made statues and crosses according to our Lord.

Now that's a good point.  Thank you, Ollie.

I have read that it was derived from the mystic TAU of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. Supposedly, it came from the letter "T" which was the initial name of TAMMUZ and was used in the BABYLONIAN MYSTERIES for MAGIC purposes.

Certainly, there is no scriptural warrant for it or several of the other things of the RCC.
Is this correct?

aw

Sym and ollie- Good points. Sym, you said a lot of great stuff. Mature is a good way to put it. That was what I was trying to say. Maturity is a problem, cause the "Church" to do things we are not proud of. Most of it totally against the bible. Directly again the 10 commandments. I don't know why Christians would think killing witchs, burning crosses in people front yards, and bombing abortion clinics are a good idea...

Aw- Do we believe in magic now? You might not want to say that, A4C and Brother Love will kick you out of their Harry Potter club! ;D Jesus died on a cross for our sins. It doesn't take a Master degree to see that. Nor does it take a Super Satan mystic Cult with a Stargate fetish ;D. The Early Church used crosses as a sign. Then, someone thought it would be cool to add a Jesus on it, maybe a Bishop did it for looks; maybe a priest wanted something as a more striking, provoking reminder; maybe a monk wanted to show iff his widdling skills by cavring a figure on his rosery; maybe some King wasn't to get on the Pope goot side with a cool looking present, who knows where it first came out. Point being, no matter what Jack Chic thinks he knows, somethings just turn out that way, without any occultish influence. The Early Church used the Cross and the fish as signs that the Government who was trying to kill them wouldn't notice. And the picture of Jesus was added on later for effect.

Now lets go back and look at this a different way: WHY, oh why, would the Catholic Church have any reason to use a sign used by a Cult in the first place? Yeah, if the origin of it is occultish, it would be a grave thing, proving the Catholic Church is evil. But there is just no reason to use it! Did they just run out of good ideas or something? The bible is full of symbols. And I'm sure they had a few creative Preist who could have drawn a cool looking symbol. Maybe call Prince's agent, we would have the Pope formerly know as John Paul, too ;D What would be the point of using a cult sign? 2 sticks crossing eachother, doesn't get much simpler then that! Unless they wanted to use a line ;)

Sorry, if the 2 paragraphs sound angery or bitter. I didn't mean for it too, but I know it does sometimes ( a lot of the time) it reads that way. And then the other person get defencive, and, to quote the Supertones we look "Less like a Family, and more like a fist fight." I think we have done a good job thus far, I just don't want to start it up all over again. That's never fun. ;D Look, I'm smiling----------> :)

I agree, it must be a Godly Maturity.

I am afraid the reason for most of the woes in the chuch today is the progressive liberal teachings, which lead to women preachers/pastors, and even accepting leaders who are openly involved in practicing sin.

Even the lack of discipline handed down to church leaders who are involved in things unbecoming the office, rather it seems it is just simply ignored.

Well, thats all I have to say about this matter.

Blessings
Petro

It was a question and not a statement of my beliefs. There are several that I have relative to Roman Catholocism, especially the veneration of Mary, as the catechism does state in explicit and glowing terms that she is necessary for salvation. It also says that there is no salvation for anyone outside of the Catrholic church which can only be entered into by baptismal regeneration followed by transubstantiation.

Just curious and perhaps you can fill me in on how the RCC views salvation?

aw

Yeah, I know. I just had a lot to say on the topic, and I know when I type stuff like that, it an come out kind of rough. I just wanted you to know that wasn’t how I meant it.

What kind of a Catechism do you have? The Vatican II stated the salvation from other Churches is legitimate. I’d have to double check, but I think that they where the same council that caused a lot of the Mary stuff everyone hates so much. Sounds like you have old copy!

The Question of Salvation is a complex one, let me get back to you later today.

In the mean time, check out newadvent.com. They have a pretty vage, useless definition of Salvation, but it is better then nothing.

The Question of Salvation is a complex one,


Huh?  Okay, I agree that, like for the angels, it is a "mystery" as to why God offered his own perfect and righteous Son, for us--the Just, for the unjust.   And that is why God's chief angel, Lucifer--ever the ambitious Prosecutor, just couldn't deal with that at all, since once we sinned we were deserving the death sentence, and Lucifer just couldn't handle the forgiveness thing, so he an a third rebelled.  Okay, I see why that's maybe a "mystery"(known as, um, "love", something Lucifer/Satan is apparently clueless about  ::)).

But why complex?  He died for us.  A child can accept that.


But back to the minister thing, and being mature.  

Actually, what the chruch needs, are not only mature individuals, but servants.

"The first must be last", said Jesus.  We have to be servants, of the flock(in all their creaturely habits--- :P ::) :-[ :-X--*sigh*).

The ministry isn't the place to achieve one's ambitions.  If you're going there to do "great things for God", um, watch out for rude disappointment(hehe ;D).

Yes, Sym, but he asked how the RCC views salvation, a definition spread out over 2,188 passages. The concept of Salvation isn’t complex, but the doctrine goes pretty deep. I wanted to give him a good answer, citing the catechism, but I was in to much of a rush for all of that. Well, lets get started.  Of course, we all know salvation is the forgiveness of sins and restoration of your relationship with the father (direct quote from Catechism glossary), through the blood sacrifice of his only Son, Jesus Christ. But, that part is a no brainer. You where talking about more details about the specific believes of he RCC, right? Well basically, Aw, I’m going to let the Catechism speak for it self. I‘ll list the passage number, and what it says, you can look it up, if you‘d like:

169- God alone gives salvation, of course. This is clearly stated for all to see, as the first sentence is “Salvation comes from God alone.”

830- The means of Salvation are Confession of faith, sacramental life, and an ordained ministry with apostolic succession.

1129- Sacraments of the New Convent, which are Baptism and Communion, are required. Transubstantiation is just the fancy name behind the Catholic’s belief of what happens in the “Mystery of the Eucharist.” But, lets not get into an anamnesis debate, I’m sick of hearing about it, lol. While partaking in the Lord’s Supper is required, believing in the transubstantiation theory is not. This is one instance of where the phrase “effective, but not valid.” comes in. It is all in 1362-1381 if you want to read about it. Doesn’t have much to do with Salvation, but it explains transubstantiation and why it is believed.

1257- This directly addresses the fact that Baptism is required. And., that is pretty much what it said: “Baptist is required for salvation”

1816- Faith is required. This one can get really confusing. Reading the passage alone would almost lead one to believe it is about Work being require, when in fact, it is the tail end of a 3 passage discretion of Faith.

This is the latest Edition, revised by Pope John Paul the II, scripture in text and citations, if you want them. You can find the full text online, I think. Just google it. The only problem with that is the online version may not have the scripture citations. And believe me, they are very important in understanding the Catholic point of view.

On a side note, 817-819 does a nice job explaining the Roman Catholic stance on Protestantism. Basically, they believe both sides of the original issue handled it very poorly, the Catholic Church being at fault for most of it, but both sides here wrong. However, the RCC doesn’t  see the sins as inherited, and views the communities resulting from these protests, and “accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.” To goes on to say “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the lord.” They see not problem with Protestant salvation, and seek a unity among the Denominations. The catechism is kind of tricky to navigate. A lot of confusion comes from people trying to read and understand it on their own, without any kind of experience or aid from someone with knowledge of it. Even Catholics have a hard time! ;D And this is an especially tricky topic. The word “Protestant” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Catechism, and there is no direct connection in the Sections on Salvation that address salvation in Protestant churches. You have to go to the section of Church Unity to find out about Protestantism. If I hadn’t read that passage just the other day, I wouldn’t have found it now! The Catechism only state Mary is required for salvation by those who take it out of context. The report of Mary’s worship has been great exaggerated. There are 2 passage people like to use when attacking the belief of Mary. 969 is a more popular one, and it talks about her in a manor that is talks about all saints, she is an intercessor, and prays that we do not lose our walk. And everyone forgets about 970, which explains that Mary’s function doesn’t diminish Jesus, but displays his power. The second one is 1172, which is nothing more then an explanation of why the Liturgical year has a small part sectioned off for Mary. This would not seem odd to any Catholic, or anyone else on a Liturgical system, because the point of the Liturgical year is to go thru the life of Christ, and being born of a Virgin (and being born PEROID) is an important factor in the human life cycle. But, I have to ask you to keep in mind not to judge all of us. Between the Roman Church, all Eastern Rites, the Byzantine Rite, the Polish Nation rite, and all the rest, the only one who believe in the Mary doctrine is the RCC. The rest of us think it foolishness. She say she wanted the lords will when the Angel asker her, big deal! She was like what, 14? 17? If a big glowing man showed up at my home and said I was going to get pregnant as a virgin, I’d do to scared to disagree or debate!!!!!!! lol ;)

Ok, now that I covered the basics... ;D Well, that was fun. Hope this was helpful, and not to vague. Let me know if you need clarification on anything. :)

Well said, Sym. I wish more people would get that, we are hear to serve. It is called “service” for that reason! The preacher and P&W are not the show. The whole sanctuary is God’s personal  show. God isn’t sitting in the balcony watching the Preacher in stage, he is sitting in Heaven watching all of us. Sunday morning is game day, and the Preacher isn’t the only player. People want the spirit of God in their church, well, he isn’t going to some to listen to the Preacher talk about something He already knows, and has been trying to get through our heads for ages. He is going to come to see all his Children. Service isn’t about you. That is why alter calls are AFTER service!  

Does not the catechism #969 indicate that Mary is a necessary requirement for salvation?

aw

Yes and no. 969, 494, 1172 all say yes, she is necessary for salvation, in the aspect that she gave birth to the God/man who would die so that we could be saved, and that she is constantly praying for the Church (Legend has it she has been doing that since the death of Jesus). But, she does not save us, the Catechism flatly says that only God can do that.

Of course, I’m not counting Pope John Paul’s immaculate conseption issues. He is a great man, but all these years without a girl does some strange things to a guy! ;D lol

Okay and thanks for responding.

Would your view be that John 3:16, Eph 2:8-10 and 1 Cor 15:1-4 contains sufficient scripture for the Holy Spirit to bring about the new birth?

aw

I read yours Tibby, or at leas tparts of it.

It's all quite extensive.

Aw- Yes, I think those verse, especially John 3:16 definite principles and attitudes that make a true Christian what he is. Personally, I preferred John 3:16/Roman Road combo, but that works as well.

Sym- I know, I looked at what I had written and thought “Oh no, I’m turning into Petro!” I wonder how many people are going to read the full thing, or just do what I do with Petro... and pretend like he didn’t post it. ;) I’m saving that in case I have a report to turn in an hour before class ;D

Back to the original post.  I see Christ crucified on the cross and am reminded of what He did for me.  At my Parish we have a Crucifix behind the high alter and Christ's knees are bloody and He has wounds from His scourging.  I cannot think of a better way to reflect on His true Sacrifice for me.  How easy it is to gaze upon an empty cross and not fully appreciate the pain and suffering He went through to save a lowly soul as me.

Why sure you do ;D

Benny Hinn is that you ;D

I think you’re confusing Catholic with Evangelicals, A4C  ;) ;D

Well said, ave.

Remindes me of Moses in Numbers 21

21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

****************
Centuries later, the bronze serpent was destroyed because the Israelites had turned it into an idol, in violation of The Second Commandment:

Explain to me how gazing upon my Savior on the cross and thanking Him for what He did for me is the same as worshipping an idol?

Are you saying that worshipping Jesus is like idol worship or are you saying that the metal or wood of which the likeness of Jesus was carved is an idol?

You better take down all your photographs, because gazing upon them and smiling at happy memories should be classified as idol worship then!!

You people are so entrenched in anti-Catholic rhetoric you don't even realize the fact that you make NO SENSE whatsoever!

Well, there goes the peace. Thank a lot, Jabez, luv ya, bro. You really know how to lighten the mood! ::)

Besides, the accusation of idol worship is a bit hollow coming from someone who named themselves after the Evangelical’s new fad idol, the Mantra of Jabez.

"That is one black kettle, ain't it, pot?"

1.Read Numbers 21,Then look at 2 Kings 18:1-6
2.Worshiping Jesus is Awsome!Looking at a statue and worshiping i feel is wrong.(idol worship)
3.I have no photos of GOD or Jesus,i didnt know there were any real ones.If you mean family photos,i do not hold them as GOD.I do not worship photos.
4.What didnt make sense?Iam not anti-catholic.I meant no offense.
**************

That is Ave, not "Tibby"

But, I take issue with number 2. It seems you imply looking at something and worshiping is a sin? If you look at something while you praise, it is praising that? What is doing the worship? The Mind, or the body? Your whole being. I've been look it doesn't matter where you worship God. I've been told youcan do it at school, at work, in the car. But you are all telling me I can't do it in front of a Picture? Are you telling me worship is limited to that things that suround us while we worship?

1.Sorry
2.All i was doing is showing what had happen before in the OT.I did not accuse anyone.I read Numbers and 1 Kings and i can see how that can happen to the cross,cant you?Yes the username i used is Jabez from a book i read,i couldnt think of any other name,but i will change it if you would like?
3.Not sure what you mean?
3.

Sorry man, the way we are reading it, it looking like a pretty harsh stab. But you say you didn’t mean anything by it, I believe you. Sorry for the mix up.

However, I still disagree with your definition of worship. I do not believe standing in front of something is worshiping. The object of worship isn’t on this plan of existence, so why should the things that surround us when we worship matter? I would venture to say it is our hearts, not our knees, that bow when we worship Jesus.

tibby,

There you go again...blowing smoke.

Posture has everything to do, with worship, since the posture manifest what one believes in ones heart, when you dip your fingers into holy water to sign of the cross yourself, light a candle, or burn incense, it is done in a way, the can be compared to bowing or bending the kneww, it matters little what you say , you don't see in the posture, because you know you do it as a result of your obedience to your heart, ...it simply is a form of worship...period.

You can deny it all you want, Christians see this for what it really is, and your denial of it shows your unwillingness to deal with it.

The cross is an image, just as pictures, and statutes, and the bowing or bending of the knee  directed at these things is what is called  worship by Gods word. You can say your bowing to the memory the cross conjures up in your thoughts, however the fact is your posture is directed the image contrary to the commandment.

It doesn't matter what you call it, or wish to define it as, if God  says it is worship, this is what it is.

Here is a verse, where God spoke;

Rom 11
2  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3  Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4  But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

God reserves worship to himself not His image nor any other thing which represents him, pure and simple...


Blessings,

Petro

So Petro, by blowing smoke, do you mean… ;D

Yes, the outward expression and all that, I know. But the point I’m trying to make is Bowing and Worship are not synonymous. Bowing to something doesn’t mean you are worshiping it, and I having seen otherwise.

Rom 11:4, bowing is symbolic of worship, but I can still point out places in the bible when Bowing isn’t worship. Granted, there are time when people bow as a sign of worship, but not always. I think I would know if I worship the image of Jesus over Jesus. I mean, with the millions of people in the country who say things just as you do, don’t you think I would have taken a step back by now, and examined my heart and the heart of the fellow worshippers, to see what our focus is? And do you think, if my conclusion would have been. I worship the cross, that I would have stopped?

tibby,


This discussion, has centered around bowing to an image made of stick or stone, not any living person, you would be hard pressed to show me any verse, where anyone other than heathens bowing to an image, or an idol fashioned in the form of an beast or men, or someother image considered a god.

If there are some verse or passages??, I say post them.. and quit talking in circles..

Most psuedo catholics today only keep the doctrines the Rcc church teaches that appeal to them, it is doubtful they can tell the difference between Worship and worship.

God seeks men to Worship him, in Spirit and in Truth (Jhn 4:23-24)

We read, at:

Numbers 25,
1  And Israel abode in gotcha2tim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
2  And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
3  And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Bowng is only one position which is considered worship by God, at Ex 32:19, dancing in the presence of the image of a golden calf, was considered an abomination, that day 3000 men died (vs 28)

Burning incense was the reason the bronze serpent commanded to be made by the Lord at (Num 21:8) was destroyed at (2 Kings 18:4).

I am confident enough to say from reading these accounts, that these people who bowed, danced and burnt incense felt exactly the way you do, according to them they were not worshipping.

In relation to God, they are right they were NOT worshipping God, but they did worship the images, according to Gods Word.



Blessings,

Petro

My understanding is that worship has to be intentional.  You can not offer worship by accident.

I know people who drive Mercury cars but they don't worship the symbol on them even when they are polishing it.

I know people who put out cornucopias at thanksgiving even though they do not worship the good of plenty through it.

I know that the Jewish temple was adorned with cherubims, oxen and lions (1 Kings 7:27-39) yet they did not worship these even though the prayed in the temple.  These items were meant for symbols/reminders to sustain focus or aid in reverence as the worshipers of God prayed.  Much as the phylacteries were.

Catholics who properly follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (as you yourself admit - since they claim not to worship images) do not worship statues, even the crucifix.  The Roman Catholic Church does not teach them to and the proper intent is not to worship.  (That is not to say that some Catholics do not understand this and blur the line by assigning more significance than they should to objects of focus.  But that is a personal fault and not a flaw in the Catholic doctrine.)

The images and such that are there, are just like an empty cross, they are to aid in focusing and as a reminder.  Catholics are not like some barbaric tribe who assign the concept of real power and life to inanimate objects.  They understand the man made objects have no power of their own, that the true power resides with God.  So the only intent is to give glory to that God, not to worship in anyway these symbols.  Without intent there can be no worship. Ergo - Catholics do not worship statues.

Yeah, that he said! ;D

I still to this day find those who think Catholic worship statues is just plain silly.  

The fact that someone kneels before a statue to pray does not mean that he is praying to the statue, just as the fact that someone kneels with a Bible in his hands to pray does not mean that he is worshiping the Bible. Statues or paintings or other artistic devices are used to recall to the mind the person or thing depicted. Just as it is easier to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it is easier to recall the lives of the saints by looking at representations of them or Christ on the Cross.

The use of statues and icons for liturgical purposes (as opposed to idols) also had a place in the Old Testament. In Exodus 25:18–20, God commanded: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be."

In Numbers 21:8–9, he told Moses: "‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." This shows the actual ceremonial use of a statue (looking to it) in order to receive a blessing from God (healing from snakebite). In John 3:14, Jesus tells us that he himself is what the bronze serpent represented, so it was a symbolic representation of Jesus. There was no problem with this statue—God had commanded it to be made—so long as people did not worship it. When they did, the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). This clearly shows the difference between the proper religious use of statues and idolatry.  
When the time came to build the Temple in Jerusalem, God inspired David’s plans for it, which included "his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the Lord concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19).

In obedience to this divinely inspired plan, Solomon built two gigantic, golden statues of cherubim: "In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold. The wings of the cherubim together extended twenty cubits: one wing of the one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub; and of this cherub, one wing, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and the other wing, also of five cubits, was joined to the wing of the first cherub. The wings of these cherubim extended twenty cubits; the cherubim stood on their feet, facing the nave. And he made the veil of blue and purple and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and worked cherubim on it" (2 Chr. 3:10–14).

The most important form of honoring the saints, to which all the other forms are related, is the imitation of them in their relationship with God. Paul wrote extensively about the importance of spiritual imitation. He stated: "I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:16–17). Later he told the same group: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:1–2). The author of the book of Hebrews also stresses the importance of imitating true spiritual leaders: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7).

(http://www.voiceoflife.homestead.com/files/altermass.jpg)

Christians, do not have to be ignorant about this matter of whether Rome teaches images are to be honored, venerated and  worshipped,  this is the 21st Century and because of computers is the information age.

Images and statues are placed in Catholic churches for the express purpose of worshipping them;

You be the judge, if this is not so;;

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

HERESIES EXPOSED
A Brief Critical Examination in the Light of the Holy Scriptures of some of the Prevailing Heresies and False Teachings of Today
Compiled by
WM. C. IRVINE
Roman Catholicism
By Wm. C. Irvine



Idolatry
Our first charge is that she is an IDOLATROUS CHURCH. But it may be asked, Does Rome really teach the worship of idols? Archdeacon Sinclair, writing on Image Worship, said:-
The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent decrees that the images of Christ and the Virgin Mary, and of the other saints, are especially to be had and retained in the churches, and that honor and veneration are to be paid to them.
From the Protestant Alliance Magazine, July, 1922, we cull the following:-

The Creed of Pope Pius IV teaches thus:-
"I most firmly assert that the image of the Christ, of the Mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of the other saints ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them."

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:-

"It is lawful to have images in the church, and to give honor and worship unto them,"

Note the progression, from the decrees of the Council of Trent,  to what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says;
"honor and worship unto them"

Now, here is the condensed version of the Catholic churches version, together with Councils edicts together with the objections answered to these points being discussed:

Http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

Part III The Decalogue
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT :
Veneration And Invocation Of Angels And Saints Not Forbidden By This Commandment
It Is Lawful To Honour And Invoke The Angels
It Is Lawful To Honour And Invoke The Saints
Objections Answered
The Honour And Invocation Of Saints Is Approved By Miracles
The Above Words Do Not Forbid All Images
They Forbid Idols And Representations Of The Deity
They Do Not Forbid Representations Of The Divine Persons And Angels
They Do Not Forbid Images Of Christ And The Saints
Usefulness Of Sacred Images
How The Sanction Contained In The Above Words Should Be Proposed

In each of the above sections, there are sub sections, which define the teachings point by point of the Roman Catholic churches position on each of these teachings, the quotes above have been slightly modified so that of the original Councils wording, do not impact the reader and soften the word, "worshipping" teaching that images are not only for due honor and veneration but,  for worshipping, also.  

The section which contains page 235, of the 25th Session  of the Council addressing this matter.


I am printing the exact words from the actual book containing the original document according to the author;

The Council of Trent
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)




 SESSION THE TWENTY-FIFTH,
Begun on the third, and terminated on the fourth, day of December, MDLXIII., being the ninth and last under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV.


ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAlNTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES.

"Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images."

So there you have it, does the RCC teach images may be worshipped??


Blessings,

Petro

Good to know we are taking our information from a bias source that used both Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, Petro. ::)

Petro - Do you actually read what those anti-Catholic sites are telling you such and such a council said?  Or do you just copy from an anti-Catholic site and claim it to be true because some bigot says it is?  The quotes you copied from whatever anti-Catholic site - are wrong.  Anyone can go to the Catechism of the Council of Trent and do a "FInd word" and see that what you posted was out and out wrong.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/trentc.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/trentc.htm)But the pastor should not content himself with showing that it is lawful to have images in churches, and to pay them honour and respect, since this respect is referred to their prototypes. He should also show that the uninterrupted observance of this practice down to the present day has been attended with great advantage to the faithful, as may be seen in the work of Damascene on images, and in the seventh General Council, the second of Nice.

I could go on and DEBUNK all the other lies you posted, but I am sleepy...Anyway, anyone who wants to do a little research can go to google and find out these are lies and misquotes if they want to or they can believe years of anti-Catholic hatred if they want.  Purely their choice.  The Catechisms are all online.

Well show the information given you, it isn't correct.

I can here you talking, but I say prove its anti catholic...

Anything that doesn't agree with you is anti catholic, you have no integrity, unless you can show us the errors.

And we are supposed to take your word at face value?

Come on..........get serious.


Petro

tibby,

Sheeeshshs!!!

Do you ever read anything before you engage tongue;

The Url I gave you is specifically for Parish Priest, this is the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is why it is a condensed article of the Council of Trent teaching of the 1st Commandment and observance and the uses of images.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT FOR PARISH PRIESTS

You and ave, need to engage the brains before typing responses.


Wha so matta you????



Petro

michael

I posted the information in its entirety, the site I gave you is a Catholic site, not an anti-catholic as, these others have charged, clearly it is the condensed version of the Councils edicts, note, that this version is for "Parish Priests", presumbaly for instruction and execution of these decisions made.

It would help if you familiarize yourself with how to use the tools provided in the "quote" section, use the brackets to encapsulate that which is quoted thus; , and then give your reply outside of these, it will make reading your posts much clearer and easier to read.


I gave you both the catholic website which is a condensed version, even I see that it does not match the version, I printed from the reference at the end of my post, if you can't find it, How can you know what you know and say is true??


You sound a little smarter the the ave, and tibby, but don't be like them, they are lazy, and would rather have themselves heard, than seek the information out, it is all there, you need to have your fingers do a little walking;  

For instance, plug yourself into the "fordam" website, scroll down to "Part III The Decalogue, then scroll to the sub sections posted for your review, lets take sub section;

The Above Words Do Not Forbid All Images

Let no one think that this Commandment entirely forbids the arts of painting, engraving or sculpture. The Scriptures inform us that God Himself commanded to be made images of Cherubim, and also the brazen serpent. The interpretation, therefore, at which we must arrive, is that images are prohibited only inasmuch as they are used as deities to receive adoration, and so to injure the true worship of God.

For instance, consider the "brazen Serpent" again,. It is true God commanded Moses to make the brazen (fiery) serpent (Num 21:8), for the explicit purpose that anyone who was bitten by a serpent, could look upon it and live.  

However this "fiery serpent" which placed on a high pole had become and image to which incense was burned to.

For this very reason it was destroyed, because burning incense to it(2 Ki 18:4), was considered a form of worship, you can rationalize it anyway you want, the fact is, it was destroyed because it was used for something which was otherwise made for.

The case of images of sanits, angels, Jesus, Mary, the Cross, are specifically made by the Catholic church for the express purpose of praying to them, which is a form of worship, manifested by their position and attitude while performing this duty.

You can argue that the fiery serpent was not the object of the veneration and honer expressed by the burning of the incense in its presence, nevertheless the scriptures are carefull to tell us why it was destroyed.

I am fully convinced, those who say, we know what worship is or isn't !; are, those who really don't or can't tell, inspite of what is written in the 2d Commandment.

What obscures it for them is the fact that the second commandment says nothing about image or idol worship.

The Catholic churhces 2d commandment reads as follows:

"You shall not take name of the Lord your God in vain."(from; Duet 5:11)

Omitting verse 6-10, verse 5 says nothing of image or idol worship; it is simply the version recounted by Moses.

While the Gods own words spoken at Ex 20, give His commandmnets as written on the tablets of stone given to Moses;

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."  

As you can see, if forbidding image worship is not found in the commandments, it becomes easy to accept the word of of those considered more wiser and learned than ones self, which is what the unlettered do presentlty and did then.


Not so, bowing, praying, burning incense to an image is a form of worship, forbidden by the second commandment.

tibby in blowing smoke, says I can give scripture which proves this and that, he never has, can you??


Blessings,

Petro




 

What are you talking about? You are telling me this site that I was referring to:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm (http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm)

Is a Catholic site used by Parish Preist? Um... no, it isn‘t... ::)  So, the real question is, do you ever read anything before you engage tongue? ;)

Oh, by the way, I compared your little “Article for the Priest” with the Catechism for the Parish you posted, and I can’t kind any of the quotes they cited in that web page in the catechism.  

Ok - we are all pretty intelligent here right?  Let's just talk plainly ok?

From what I can see there are only - what? three Catholics here - maybe four?  I recognize we are on your "turf" and respect that fact - humbly.

Since I am a devout - practicing - Roman Catholic Christian, who attends daily Mass when possible and engages in all the Sacraments pertinent to my vocation in life, I can tell all of you non-Catholics that when I am in prayer - on my knees - on the kneeler - in the Church - and I am glancing up at my Savior upon the cross - looking solemnly at His bruised and battered body - in prayer and meditation - I can honestly tell all of you - I am NOT worshipping the wood of that cross, or the plaster which Jesus was sculpted out of.

I do not say in prayer, "Grant my request oh wooden idol."  I am not trying to be flip, but you have a backwards view of our form of prayer and ways of showing devotion.  How could you possibly know if you aren't a Catholic?

I liken it to this example.  You have a dear relative that has just passed.  Your heart is aching.  You have his/her picture in a frame.  You are holding it close to you in sorrow.  You are calling to mind good times you had with this relative.  You stare at the picture some more.  You bow your head and perhaps shed a few tears.

As an outsider to the situation, would I say to myself, "this man is bordering on idolatry the way he is 'worshipping' that picture."  This sounds absurd doesn't it?  Silly even.  You aren't worshipping or honoring the metal frame.  You aren't worshipping or honoring the glass which holds the picture.  You aren't even worshipping the developed picture behind the glass.  You are recalling the memory of the person.  You are showing respect to the memory of that person you are grieving for correct?  Would it not seem completely irrational to say you are worshipping an idol?
This is exactly what you all are saying to us.  You are NOT Catholics and therefore you have no idea the state of our hearts when we are in prayer to Our Lord do you?   You should not judge what is going through our heads or hearts while in prayer.  Do you think we are so stupid as to be worshipping an idol without full knowledge of such?  Would I say to you, "Oh by the way, did you know you were just worshipping an idol while holding onto that picture earlier?"  Of course I wouldn't because it would be utterly ridiculous to even suggest such a thing!

I have read through this topic and it seems no one "has ears to hear" what we - Catholics - are telling you.  We could say the same of you with your leather-bound Bibles.  The Bible is the be-all/end-all for you Bible-Believing Protestants.  You bow in prayer with your Bible in your hands.  Are you worshiping the leather or are you speaking to your Lord?

If you are NOT Catholic - you are entitled to question something you have read or something the Church teaches.  We, who are Catholics have an obligation to explain to you said practice.  We have NO REASON to lie to you all!  Do you think we are saying to each other, "Better be careful what you say to these non-Catholics lest they find out we are idol worshippers!"  Come on!

Only God can judge the heart and only God knows where our hearts are in prayers.  You cannot possibly tell US what it is WE believe if you ARE NOT EVEN Catholic.

Until you sit in the pews at Mass daily - or until you have read the Catechism and read Sacred Scripture and are thoroughly engrained in Catholicism - do not TELL us what we believe.  Question us, certainly.  But you aren't in a position to TELL us  what we believe.

I say this in all humility to you.  I have sat where you all sit - in the pews of the Baptist church and can tell you that you really will never know Catholicism unless you study Catholicism from Traditional Catholic sources.  Anything else is a twisted misconception born out of hatred.

(http://voiceoflife.homestead.com/files/greenscapular1.gif)(http://voiceoflife.homestead.com/files/greeny2.gif)

IHM, you know my request....

?????  say what???

You're getting lazy, at such a young age, so what do you want me to do.

I gave you all you need to find it...

lazy = sloppy teaching...you might remember this.

You need to start developing good study habits, if you want to teach religion to people..

Well on second thought maybe not.


Petro

I hear the lazy part all the time. I'm use to it. But, who cares. I perferre to think of it as relaxed  ;) ;D

How is that lazy, anyways? You gave me a site, and later told me Priests us this site. I am telling you, no, this is an anti-Catholic site, Priests do not use it. Nothing lazy about that, just telling you the truth. I know many priest from all over, and even a few monks, and none of them have every used that site. ;D I can go and ask them all, but I know they will say know. Plus, I'm to lazy to ask them all ;)

Ok, for real, I did look thru and mini-Catechism you gave and compared it with the article gave. Maybe it was worded differently, but I could not find the passages he was referring to.

Besides, many priest follow the 2 year Liturgy set out by the Bishop. And I have yet to see one where the Sunday mass it about why Catholics are False ;D

I personaly dont like the crucifix ...  the reason HE LIVES!

But....

 I love the scripture....

Isa 53:1-54:1
53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


KJV

Are not these words writing a picture on our hearts, a picture of the Crucifixion?

Well if people are telling you, you are lazy, you need to examine your definition of what you consider relaxed.


Haven't I said to you, you do not comprehend what you read??

I never even insinuated catholic priest use this site, you assumed I said this, you are so lazy, you don't even bother to read, what you respond to..I don't know that they do, what is clear to me is that this written for parish priests, but your right they (priests) probalby don't read this nonsense.




Truth, what is the truth??


I believe you...


Well.....what else can I say??

It doesn't surprise me.....for sure..

Blessings,
Petro

Reba - "I personaly dont like the crucifix ...  the reason HE LIVES!"

I hear that a lot and I guess coming from a certain point of view I can see why you would say that :)

I rejoice, as well, in the fact that Jesus Christ conquered death through the Ressucrection, but I suppose meditating on His death has a whole other impact on my personal spirituality and this is why I love the Crucufix.

There is joy - yes - in the spiritual journey, but I think remembering what He went through helps keep us focused about the horror of sin.  God bless.

You posted this link:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

I visited the link, and replied “Good to know we are taking our information from a bias source that used both Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, Petro.”

You quoted my post an replied “The Url I gave you is specifically for Parish Priest, this is the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is why it is a condensed article of the Council of Trent teaching of the 1st Commandment and observance and the uses of images.”

Clearly, the link you posted, the link I was referring to is not the link Parish Priests use. Now there was another link that was, but we where not referring to this link. Perhaps you thought I was referring to a different link, or perhaps you just are trying to be difficult, but it is clear that the link I talked about it not used by parish priests.

This is the truth, it is that simple. Anyone who wishes and follow our posts as I told it, and will see it is clearly truth.

avemaria:  Ok - we are all pretty intelligent here right?


  Well, um....



     ???

      ;D

Yes the material from Fordham you did, my mistake.   And Fordham University is a Catholic Institution and it’s site is trustworthy but I saw nothing which discussed worshipping icons.  That is unless you include the quote which you misunderstood.  I say you misunderstood it based on how you incorrectly bolded an section of it emphasizing certain words in such a way as to imply a conclusion opposite to what is intended by the text, but I will point that out explicitly later in this post.


The URL the others were referring to is for is for an anti-Catholic site.  http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm
and from that site you did post incomplete partial statements and quotes of incomplete sentence showing no context.

So you have one site offering true Catholic positions on topics saying nothing about worshipping icons and another antiCatholic site presenting incorrect statements about Catholic doctrine.  Neither prove your point.


I am not sure I follow the grammar of your last sentence.  
Please explain your question if I do not address it somewhere along the line here.


You are being unfair toward Ave Maria and Tibby.  If you are presenting an argument it is up to you to provide the evidence.  If you are too lazy to go to the website and copy the information into your post then you have no room to criticize those who don’t want to do you leg work for you.  I have done that legwork for you repeatedly and maybe that has gotten you spoiled, but not everyone is going to the lengths I have to help you build your case just to get to the truth, and they have no moral prerogative to do so.


The serpent was destroyed because they were worshipping it.  But that worship was in the form of burning incense as an offering to a god, Nehushtan they believed the image personified, not just because they were burning incense in front of it.  the key is the intent and the idea of personification.  That is not the case with Catholic’s use of statues and other focuses.  They do not believe the images personify anything or even represent anything that is worthy of worship.  The Israelites pray today facing the wailing wall, and in biblical times prayed facing the Temple or Jerusalem or the East depending on where in the world they were, yet they do not intend worship of any of those items.   You have to remember that sin is associated with intention.  If Catholics pray using a statue as a point of focus with no intention of worshipping the statue itself then they aren’t worshipping the statue.


No that is not their intent!  Your argument is what is referred to as an appeal to an unknowable fact.  You cannot possibly know what another’s intent is and therefore have no right to judge it.  The Catholic Church clearly teaches in all its documents (other than the one you found on that questionable website) that worship is to be reserved for God alone.

Show me one quote from a verifiable official Catholic source (preferably the Catechism) that says Catholics are to worship statues, and then be sure to provide the whole quote in context.  

These aren’t new arguments.  This was all argued and decided back in the 8th and 9th centuries when the iconoclasts tried to prove this point.  The result was that after almost two hundred years of serious debate the Church made it clear that images were allowable because they were not honored, venerated or especially were not worshipped.  Do you think that they have reversed their position or somehow slipped it past 1200 years and 10 billion Catholic believers only to be discovered by you?  

Acts 21:25 tells us to keep ourselves from things offered to idols.  The intent here is to avoid any intention of worship directed to them.  But in 1 Cor 8:4 we see that we can eat things offered to idols as long as we know that idols are nothing.  Because then there can be no intent to worship.  You cannot worship something you know doesn’t exist.  The Israelites erred in regard to the serpent because they believed that the serpent god existed.  Catholics (who understand and follow the teachings of the Church) know that the statues and even the saints represented by the statues do not deserve worship.  So there can be no worship in those cases, just as there is no worship for a Christian who eats food offered to idols.  

I have had to break this post in two pieces so look for the rest to follow.

Part 2


I will admit that there are Catholics who blur this line and offer Mary especially too much respect that verges on worship.  But that it their own failing it is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Do you feel confident enough in your faith to eat from the altar of an idol?  I suspect you do.  I am the same in regards to my use of images to focus my prayer and worship of God.


I don't know whether to hope you came up with this on your own (so you aren't just copying and pasting from some biased website), or that you are not this misinformed and did copy this from some website.

This is one of the oldest weakest arguments presented by Catholic haters.  The 2nd commandment you quote is a paraphrased line from a child's catechism; a simplified presentation for 2nd and 3rd graders.  The commandments as presented in the official Catholic Catechism, the one used by adults, has the whole quote directly from scripture.  This includes the part concerning images and idol worship; so your argument that this confusion (you say exists but have yet to show does exist for most Catholics) cannot be due to any teaching of the Catholic Church.  


It is easier and much wiser generally.  The scriptures are a complex body of knowledge that can only be interpreted in its entirety.  All verse must be in agreement, so the interpretation of all verse must be in agreement and the only way to do that is to know all scriptures at once.  This is impossible for man, that is why one should learn from the work of those who have gone before us and combined 2000 years of research.  This is especially true for the average Christian who has neither the time nor the resources to study in the original languages and learn the underlying history and culture behind the writings and who they were directed to.  This is the fundamental reason sola scriptura is an error.  The scriptures are materially sufficient, they contain everything we need to know; but they are not formally sufficient, they do not contain everything we need to understand them.




No, bowing, praying and burning incense do not constitute worship.  An action cannot of itself constitute a sin, otherwise merely eating from the altar of an idol would be a sin and we know it is not.  Intent is the only determiner of sin.   If you bow and pray and burn incense with the intent of offering worship, then you are worshipping but you can certainly do all of the actions toward one subject with your intentions directed toward God and the worship goes to God.

Besides this you missed my point, you had bolded the words "to be worshipped"  in the phrase "on account of which they are to be worshipped" and I was pointing out that you had the reading wrong with regard to that implication put forth by your choice in bolding.  But then rather than admit your mistake you (as you have with every point I have shown you to be mistaken on) simply move on to another attack.  How many times do I have to show you are wrong before you give up these ideas?

I hope I did a better job using the quotes this time.

michael,

At your reply #71, you said the following;


"But that worship was in the form of burning incense as an offering to a god,  

How true,   followed by:


This is not true....there is no evidence given in the scriptures  to support your claim, the image personified anything...

You reiterate this at reply #72, when you state;



While the word Nehushtan means "something made of copper", it only appears in the scripture one time and was not the name given to it by those who worshipped it, (neither did it personfy anyone) read the verse carefully, it was called Nehushtan by King Hezekiah, who destroyed it, simply because "the children of Israel did burn incensense to it", the name by which it was called, would be like saying;

it is an image of Mary or, it is an image of stone....in the case of her statute.

Speaking of Mary; this is exactly what is done by Catholic priests when celebrating solemn mass in honor of Mary Immaculate, they offer up incense to her image.

(So as not to mistake what I am saying, note that the mass is in honor to her and, not God)

If you doubt what I have said, read the verse carefully for yourself;

2 Ki
1  Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2  Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
3  And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
4  He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

There is no evidence this bronze image had become a god in the sense of the word to the Israelites, the scripture simply says, they did burn incense to it.  

This was the reason WHY it was destroyed.

When you start adding your spin to Gods Word, naturally it is to justify,.... what you do.


Tell me now, how do you differentiate worship to God, and worship to Mary's image in the solemn mass given in her honor??

Worshipping anyone or anything other than God is Idolatry.

In the case of celebrating a high mass in the honor of any saint or thing, it for sure, is idolatry, since it is in that things honor that the occasion of the celebration is,

Oh yes,  Gods name may be invoked during the celebration, nevertheless, it is in honor of someone ot something other than God.  

Idolatry, then is more than just calling a man made image God (which is the simple mans definition of idolatry) and worshipping a stone or a stick. There very few people in the modern world that would entertain such an absurdity. It is doubtfull men in the ancient world believed that way either.

I suspect their images merely represented their Gods.

Idolatry then, is directing honor, praise, glory, respect and affection that rightly belongs to God, to some created person or thing.

For instance, greed is idolatry because the greedy man has focused his affections on things rather than God (Col 3:5)

By the same token, praying to any other than God is IDOLATRY, inasmuch as the one asking fixes his hope on someone or something other than God ........

For Example:

When Catholics pray to Mary, as instructed to do so by Ligouri, in the "Glories of Mary":

"O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therfore we have recourse, to these alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil...........Thou (Mary ast my only hope........Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art trully loving and solicitous for our salvation.......My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach." (From Judge Fairly, p.5).

Tell me,  to whom is this prayer directed at, and on whom does one place his hopes on for a response??
 
......,  to help or to save, and ascribes to someone other than God the attributes or omnipresence (the ability to hear the request), omniscience (the ability to know what is best), and even omnipotence (the ability to give what is being asked for).


So you see, this is exactly why, I say, that those who practice such things are so confused, they are unable to distinguish what real worship to God is, from the worship they say is not worship directed to God.

How can you tell??


Blessings, Petro

I doubt you will read this, as you are more interested in getting "your point across" as you accused me and others of...

Do you know what it means to "worship"?  Obviously you do not.

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (hyper [beyond]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is beyond the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."

Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

Taken in part from the Catholic Answers Website

What is so complicated about the Son of God dying for my sins--protestant or catholic...



    :-[

I assume you are using the KJV.  The New American, the Jerusalem Bible, the NASB, the RSV the modern Jewish Torah by David Stern, the New English Bible, and even the Pegotcha2ta all have "they" or some other indicator that the people called it Nehushtan.   But even if the KJV has it right and all the others are wrong  I still contend that the idea of worship cannot be tied to a mere act.  It is always the intention behind the act, the people, to have been worshipping, must have associated the image with an imagined god and they must have intended worship for it to be worship of an idol.  In the case of those Israelites it was true in the case of Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church properly it is not true.


That is nonsense, there had to be some intention on the part the Israelites.  You really want to claim that they had no intent in their heart and regardless of their intention the serpent had to be destroyed?  That is fulfilling the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law, something Christ preached specifically against.


A Mass has many functions, it is liturgy of the word, liturgy of the Eucharist, it’s prayers and intentions can be directed to aid specific individuals of groups and/or to honor specific individuals or groups even though all the worship associated with it is directed only towards God.  Honor is not worship.  For you to understand the concept behind how a Catholic’s honoring of saints is reasonable we need to discuss the intercession of saints, which occurs strictly due to God choosing to act through them as vessels of honor. (see 2 Tim 2:20)  If you don’t think God functions this way through persons already passed on take a look at 2 Kings 13:21 where God works through Elisha’s bones to raise a dead man to life.  


One is worship and another is not.  How do you distinguish between love for your wife and love for your mother, brother, pastor and God.  Different emotions and intents but they do not always appear different in their associated actions.


I agree and the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Catechism 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.


Now you equate honor with idolatry.  But that cannot possibly apply to all levels of honor or else what does that do to the commandment to honor thy father and mother.  See idolatry is all in the depth of the intent, a level of intent that the Catholic Church teaches must not be practiced.


I have no problem with that idea, but now you change your accusation from Catholics worship statues to Catholics worship saints through statues.  This too is incorrect as the rest of my replies to your remaining claims show.


Yes, but the key is the phrase “rightly belongs to God”.  But that does not preclude the idea that there is a level of honor, praise, glory, respect and affection, or as Catholics say veneration, which is due someone other than God and is below that level due to God alone.  That is the level that is offered by Catholics to saints.


Yes certain levels of greed do represent idolatry.  But those levels are such that money has become more important to that person than God.  So veneration to a saint would be idolatry if that saint became more important to the individual than was God.  That is not true for someone who is properly following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Once again I went too long.
Look for part two to follow.

Part Two


If you cannot provide a verse from scripture to support this idea I must insist that you misunderstand prayer.  Catholics believe that the Christians who have gone before us are already in heaven and are used by God as vessels of honor to work miracles through.  They are the heavenly cloud of witnesses.  They are alive and animate.  When we pray to a saint in that heavenly cloud of witnesses we are merely asking them to in turn pray for us to God much as we would ask another Christian on earth to pray for us.  The difference is that we know from experience that these particular saints have been used in the past by God to answer men's prayers or in other ways intercede on our behalf.  People requested Peter and other Apostles to intercede on their behalf by healing them, to the point of just touching their handkerchiefs or allowing their shadows to pass over them.  Catholics believe that the Saints who have passed on are not less able to help us they are more able.  But all the power comes from God just as it did while they were on earth.


That is illogical.  God can provide any powers or abilities to any vessel He chooses.  Look at what He did with Elisha's bones.  If God wants the saints to hear all our prayers then they can hear all our prayers, to say otherwise places limits on God's power.  But be assured that Catholics know this or any powers Saints may have are all from God, even as Saints they have no power of their own.  Just as Peter's healing powers on earth were not His but God acting through him, so are the powers and miracles that have occurred through Saints in heaven from God and not from the Saint themselves.


No, I don't see your point, and you can tell because you know what is in your own heart.  How do you know if you are directing love at someone, you just know.  If you don't think you are directing love at someone then you are not no matter what others think who see your actions.  They can be mistaken but you yourself cannot be.  That is the whole point to intent.

Good questions. Apparently it’s not enough for some people.  ::)

 ::) ::)