Protestantism & Catholicism

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree that each person should be permitted to worship/venerate the idols of his choice, but the issue is whether such practices can be squared with the teachings of the Bible. Protestants say no. Catholics say their tradition permits it and excuse the Biblical ban by saying it:
1. applies only to false gods.
2. and does not cover 'veneration' of idols.

So it is not bigoted nonsense - it is a sober assessment of a practice any impartial observer could not separate from those of the Hindus or pagan idolaters.

I know of no Catholic that venerates any idol. This is a protestant myth.

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

Well if he still has knees, perhaps Luther is on one knee before the Pope now:
http://markmzima.xanga.com/682889388/luther%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%99sola-fide%E2%80%99-is-true-said-pope-benedict-xvi/

*added another source, I presume this is the essay from which all the headlines came.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Thanks for the links - very interesting!

As the first guy says, not too clear but certainly suggests to some a revision of Catholic dogma. It would need fleshed out before one could be sure that it supported or contradicted Trent.

Is he saying our acts of love - feeding the hungry, for example - plus our faith add up to justification? Luther was clear about what he meant as works of the Law that did not justify us - all the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Circumcision and charity.

Justification was by faith alone - charity followed, but was not a grounds of justification. We are not saved by keeping the commandments + faith. It was Christ's work that justified us, which we entered by faith. The thief on the cross had no works of charity to do, yet was as justified as Paul the apostle who laid down his life in service for Christ.

Much that was said at Trent can be taken as in line with Luther's actual view, though Trent misrepresented him. But for me the difference on Justification becomes clearer in this passage (emphasis mine):
On the increase of Justification received:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know of no Catholic that venerates any idol. This is a protestant myth.

Strange. Veneration is the word the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe what they give to their idols.

This from (emphasis mine):
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Veneration of Images
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly:

"It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
"We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God."
"We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
"We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the links - very interesting!

Glad you liked tham

As the first guy says, not too clear but certainly suggests to some a revision of Catholic dogma. It would need fleshed out before one could be sure that it supported or contradicted Trent.

Is he saying our acts of love - feeding the hungry, for example - plus our faith add up to justification? Luther was clear about what he meant as works of the Law that did not justify us - all the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Circumcision and charity.

Justification was by faith alone - charity followed, but was not a grounds of justification. We are not saved by keeping the commandments + faith. It was Christ's work that justified us, which we entered by faith. The thief on the cross had no works of charity to do, yet was as justified as Paul the apostle who laid down his life in service for Christ.

Good example with the thief, it reenforces the central argument here. The first guy (as you called him) was just the first link from a google search but I had a good read of the second guy and although I'm loath to summarise a very tightly-written piece, I think he sums it up nicely:

the second guy wrote:

For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.

Maybe to name the second guy would be a red rag to a bull;), but let's just judge the merits of what he's written.

Much that was said at Trent can be taken as in line with Luther's actual view, though Trent misrepresented him. But for me the difference on Justification becomes clearer in this passage (emphasis mine):
On the increase of Justification received:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

Is that from Trent? I'm a bit uneasy with the central theme there, but am comfortable with the idea that the more one loves God and lives in Christ, the closer one bocomes to Christ and the more Christ makes Himself known to the practicing believer. However, the idea that this is done as a reward for our virtue is wrong - it is more likely that while living in Christ we are more perceptive and sensitive to His presence around us. Would you agree with that?

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Strange. Veneration is the word the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe what they give to their idols.

This from (emphasis mine):
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Veneration of Images
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly:

"It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
"We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God."
"We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
"We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

The word 'veneration' is fine - it's your use of the word 'idols' that I dispute. An idol by definition is something that is worshipped. Splitting hairs perhaps, but idolatry is a no-no Christianity101.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idol

*edit: We do worship the Eucharist but that's a different subject. If we are mistaken in that practice then that might be idolatry but since we believe it is Jesus actually present in the Eucharist the worship is to Jesus rather than to the wafer Host.

PDN

I think we could have a productive discussion here if some of us reined in our language a bit.

On the Protestant side, it might be helpful not to sling around terms like 'idolatry' and 'superstition'.

On the Catholic side, we won't get very far if everything that is not Catholic is automatically judged as therefore being wrong.

paulaa

PDN wrote: »

I think we could have a productive discussion here if some of us reined in our language a bit.

On the Protestant side, it might be helpful not to sling around terms like 'idolatry' and 'superstition'.

On the Catholic side, we won't get very far if everything that is not Catholic is automatically judged as therefore being wrong.

The use of statues, images etc is not just a Protestant v Catholic thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Idolatry

LordSutch

postcynical wrote: »

The word 'veneration' is fine - it's your use of the word 'idols' that I dispute. An idol by definition is something that is worshipped. Splitting hairs perhaps, but idolatry is a no-no Christianity101.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idol

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

prinz

Camelot wrote: »

I presume that many RC folk pray to at these statues whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

FYP. And therein lies the difference.

homer911

There are many differences in style and theology between Protestants and Catholics, but as PDN pointed out, they are minor compared to justification by faith and the authority of scripture alone.

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *. Protestants tend to focus on the empty cross ("we serve a risen saviour...") whereas Catholics focus on the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus on the cross and hence the crucifix. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different.

Perhaps this is where uninformed non-Catholics derive the whole "guilt complex" view of Roman Catholicism (and maybe its something for Protestants to think about..)

* It does appear in some Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox churches

LordSutch

Just a small point, seeing as many protestants are *catholics & believe in 'one catholic and apostolic church', the term 'Non-Catholic' should be avoided at all costs when refering to Protestants.

*(catholic) does not always equate to 'Roman Catholic'.

Slav

homer911 wrote: »

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *.

* It does appear in some Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox churches

Oops! Am I a protestant? :eek:

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Oops! Am I a protestant? :eek:

Well, the good Orthodox folks of Constantinople had their seasons of iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th Centuries where they smashed statues with a fervency exceeding anything that happened during the Reformation.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Well, the good Orthodox folks of Constantinople had their seasons of iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th Centuries where they smashed statues with a fervency exceeding anything that happened during the Reformation.

I think there were not much (if any) venerated statues in Byzantine so they concentrated more on icons and having fun smashing their opponents heads with them. Though I agree, if 3rd-9th century Greeks could time travel to 16th-21st century Europe they would most certainly be bored.

But as you mentioned Byzantine iconoclasm, all Orthodox Churches every year on the first Sunday of the Great Lent celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy in remembrance of this very iconoclasm being finally defeated in 9th century. So from the Orthodox point of view these folks were not good or at least were not Orthodox.

Slav

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

I used to know a Lutheran who always insisted on 2) which (if true) does not make Roman Catholicism much different from Lutheranism at least in terms of the methodology used. Interpretation of certain passages (and therefore teachings) can differ of course but don't they differ among denominations in Protestantism?

LordSutch

Anglican (low Church) = plain cross > St Patricks Cathedral Dublin comes to mind. Anglican (high Church) Crucifix is acceptable > 'St John's Church' Sandymount is a prime example of a 'high church' and one could easily think that they were worshiping in a RC Church, "they even have incense"! which is totally forboden in all Anglican low churches in Ireland, which must account for 90%+ of the Anglican tradition.

postcynical

Camelot wrote: »

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

I think this is a fair perception. I've often stated before that many of us (Roman) Catholics are completely uninformed about our faith and especially about many Catholic practices. I don't want to speculate about what oher people are doing, whether they're praying 'to' the statues or as Prinz optimistically suggests 'at' the statues.... but I'm frequently amazed how few Mass-goers know when to stand or kneel or sit at Mass. I suspect many of them don't have a clue what's going on and would be as well off if the sacrifice were in Latin. But I really can't know what's in their heads or hearts.

For the record - stand and pray, kneel for the consecration and sit and listen to the readings and at the offertory. (There is of course local lee-way but this is the official recommendation). There's way too much kneeling common, possibly a remnant of the pre 1960s Mass.

postcynical

Slav wrote: »

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

Not an expert but I'd say 2) is my belief and the expression 'sola scriptura' to me suggests 1).

BrianCalgary

Camelot wrote: »

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

And it is not a worship of the statue. If I gaze up on a crucifix which causes emotion to rise up within me to kneel and worship God for His sacrifice, in order to atone my sins, then so be it.

Someone has created that crucifix by the work of their hands to glorify God.u
In the same vein, in evangelical churches, songs are sung, misic is blared, emotions rise and we call that 'worship'.

Either way, emotions are evoked by the created art, either visual or audio, that causes us to worship our creator.

The statues tell a visual story of Biblical events and depict biblical characters. God even had the Israelites carve images of cherubim to carry the ark.

Catholics do not worship idols any more than evnagelicals worship music or protestants worship the words of the creeds that are said during their liturgies.

PS. Thanks for the clarification on the 'veneration' definition wolfsbane. Note though that the paragraph does speak against 'worship' of said statues.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And it is not a worship of the statue. If I gaze up on a crucifix which causes emotion to rise up within me to kneel and worship God for His sacrifice, in order to atone my sins, then so be it.

Someone has created that crucifix by the work of their hands to glorify God.u
In the same vein, in evangelical churches, songs are sung, misic is blared, emotions rise and we call that 'worship'.

Either way, emotions are evoked by the created art, either visual or audio, that causes us to worship our creator.

The statues tell a visual story of Biblical events and depict biblical characters. God even had the Israelites carve images of cherubim to carry the ark.

Catholics do not worship idols any more than evnagelicals worship music or protestants worship the words of the creeds that are said during their liturgies.

PS. Thanks for the clarification on the 'veneration' definition wolfsbane. Note though that the paragraph does speak against 'worship' of said statues.

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

I used to know a Lutheran who always insisted on 2) which (if true) does not make Roman Catholicism much different from Lutheranism at least in terms of the methodology used. Interpretation of certain passages (and therefore teachings) can differ of course but don't they differ among denominations in Protestantism?

1) is the answer. Of course, if we had Christ or the apostles here with us, we could rely on their word.

We do have religious leaders who teach for doctrine the commandments of men - but the Lord Jesus warned about them:
Matthew 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
Andhonor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

Is that from Trent? I'm a bit uneasy with the central theme there, but am comfortable with the idea that the more one loves God and lives in Christ, the closer one bocomes to Christ and the more Christ makes Himself known to the practicing believer. However, the idea that this is done as a reward for our virtue is wrong - it is more likely that while living in Christ we are more perceptive and sensitive to His presence around us. Would you agree with that?

Yes, it's Trent. Sorry for not giving the link:
http://everyseason.org/modules/mediawiki/index.php/Council_of_Trent_-_The_Sixth_Session#CHAPTER_X._On_the_increase_of_Justification_received.

And, Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

No matter what reasons, praying 'at', 'intercession' etc etc. At the very least its not wise, at the very worst its idolotrous. From all the elders of our faith, Abraham through to Paul and Jesus himself, none encouraged praying to anyone but God for intercession or anything else. Same with statues and images. Again, at the very least its lacking in wisdom.

santing

homer911 wrote: »

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *. Protestants tend to focus on the empty cross ("we serve a risen saviour...") whereas Catholics focus on the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus on the cross and hence the crucifix. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different.

I think this is quite an important difference. In Christianity we are called to focus on the risen Saviour and remember His life. The crucifix but also presentations (or remembrance) of the "holy family," "Madonna with child," and even the "host" are directly linked with the Saviours life before His resurrection. Of which Paul says "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
(2Co 5:16)"

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image.

What about the bronze serpent? (Imagery aside)

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Are the saints dead? I know we might have different ideas of what is a saint, but let's allow that anyone who dies in Christ is a saint. Are they now dead? Is St Paul dead? (not an attack, curious about your view)

For what it's worth, I understand that all prayer is to God and that the Catholic practice of seeking intercession is problematic. I rarely engage in it myself, and don't intend to until I fully understand it.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

This is ridiculous (agreeing with you). But this is before Christ came.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

Well in the Catholic tradition, the veneration goes further than the person behind the image but on to Christ, to whom His saints are pointing and who lived through Him, with Him and in Him.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

This is a valid criticism and these practices can often dominate Catholic worship, and if misunderstood can remove Christ from the focus of all worship, rendering them hollow. However, the pagans had many means of touching beyond the material world. Human nature can worship in many ways and I'm sure you have beautiful prayers, liturgy and music in your worship of God. That pagans did likewise does not belittle your prayer.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

Agreed, but I'm sure you pray on behalf of others. You intercede with Christ for them. People may even ask you to pray for them. If a saint is living, then why can they not do likewise?

PDN

postcynical wrote: »

What about the bronze serpent? (Imagery aside)

An interesting example indeed! Are you aware that the bronze serpent ended up being destroyed by Hezekiah because the people had started worshipping it as an idol?

He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

An interesting example indeed! Are you aware that the bronze serpent ended up being destroyed by Hezekiah because the people had started worshipping it as an idol?

I am now:) That's why I post here and read here.

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Are the saints dead? I know we might have different ideas of what is a saint, but let's allow that anyone who dies in Christ is a saint. Are they now dead? Is St Paul dead? (not an attack, curious about your view)

Although the Bible uses the word "asleep" to describe a conscious presence with the Lord for those who have died, they are "dead."

1Th 4:16 (ESV) For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

postcynical wrote: »

For what it's worth, I understand that all prayer is to God and that the Catholic practice of seeking intercession is problematic. I rarely engage in it myself, and don't intend to until I fully understand it....
Agreed, but I'm sure you pray on behalf of others. You intercede with Christ for them. People may even ask you to pray for them. If a saint is living, then why can they not do likewise?

The Saints under discussion have died, they are waiting for their resurrection and not conscience of what happens on earth.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

We use images in all of our worship and devotions. We use imagey in teh songs we sing, the Bible uses imagery of Christ types. One is an audio artform the other is a literary artform.

Statues are a visual art form. When the churches were built, the Bible was not readily accessible, nor could people read it as they couldn't read.

We expect our congregations to come to worship through song, which I can never do and am made to feel less than, because I dont play an instrument nor can I sing, does thsi mean I can't worship? However when I see a visual presentation of something God has done, especially being crucified, it spurs me to worship the God of the universe as I gaze in awesome wonder at what He has done.

I do not advocate the praying to anyone but God, but also I can not begrudge the artist who creates a visual representation of what God has done in order to spur a closer understanding of teh character and love of God.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

No matter what reasons, praying 'at', 'intercession' etc etc. At the very least its not wise, at the very worst its idolotrous. From all the elders of our faith, Abraham through to Paul and Jesus himself, none encouraged praying to anyone but God for intercession or anything else. Same with statues and images. Again, at the very least its lacking in wisdom.

So if someone chooses to pray to God beside a statue of a saint they are unwise/idolotrous PDN once pointed out he prays while cutting the grass... is that unwise or idolotrous? I may kneel and pray in front of a statue of a saint...but I'm praying to God. Don't Jews go to the Wailing Wall to pray? Are they idolising a wall? As for intercession/prayer requests.. well we have a whole sticky thread on this forum looking for people to pray for others... I fail to see the difference tbh.

IMO people should use their God given talents to acknowledge their creator, be they writers, musicians, painters, sculptors etc.