Posted on 05/03/2004 8:48:00 AM PDT by NYer
According to the 25th Session of this General Council:
The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor 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 by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss...or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent]
The Church does NOT compel her members to kneel or pray before images. No one is allowed by the Church to pray to images since they have no ears to hear or power to help us. The Church allows for the veneration of images as long as the honor is directed towards Christ and His saints.
IMO if one is not moved by great art depicting Jesus, Mary, and the Saints, then they do not have the love of God in them, and theirs is a hollow love, which is no love at all.
I'm sometimes moved to tears at the sight of Our Lord on the Crucifix, because of the repentance of my own sins which caused it, and because of how pure love, in the form of Our Lord, was misunderstood and mistreated.
Those who would refuse to look at that image because of the lie that it is forbidden in the Bible, have fallen victim to the lie that is protestantism.
Out of sight - eventually out of mind.
Interesting parallel. We are both agreed that God can do what He pleases. No problem there. But it wouldn't have been *fitting* for Him to create Jesus ex nihilo, don't you think? To be a man takes more than just a body plan--it takes being born into the family so to speak. To be part of the spiritual and genetic chain. How do you understand "Son of Man" if not some kind of genetic connection with Adam's race? How do you understand the geneology of Christ? You're kind of making him a humanoid rather than a human--He looks like us, acts like us, but is really something altogether. I'm no theologian but it smacks of Nestorianism.
And then (again) there's the whole difficulty with the "you shall conceive" in the Gospel account. I'm with you on the Virgin Birth because that is a mystery specifically attested by the Gospel. The creation of Jesus' body ex nihilo however, is a presumption on the text and not an explicit teaching, or even a valid inference therefrom. Sure God *can* make Abraham's children out of stones--but *did* He do it in this particular instance? Frankly, I don't see any evidence that He did.
It doesn't matter at all what I think. The bible reminds me of that fact often.
To be a man takes more than just a body plan--it takes being born into the family so to speak.
I've already completely and totally disproven this with one verse.
To be part of the spiritual and genetic chain. How do you understand "Son of Man" if not some kind of genetic connection with Adam's race? How do you understand the geneology of Christ? You're kind of making him a humanoid rather than a human--He looks like us, acts like us, but is really something altogether. I'm no theologian but it smacks of Nestorianism.
I'm not doing this and would have never suggested it was not Mary's egg if it weren't for the verse I quoted. It's not something that I was ever concerned with but the verse is there for a reason.
And then (again) there's the whole difficulty with the "you shall conceive" in the Gospel account. I'm with you on the Virgin Birth because that is a mystery specifically attested by the Gospel.
Let me just say here that this "I'm with you part" means a lot more as I consider Islam and some of the athiest liberals that I've met and seen lately. Sure we have some disagreements about how many of Mary's eggs can fit on the head of a pin, but given a choice between being locked in prison with some of the liberals I've met of a muslem or even my neighbors of questionable faith, I'd much rather be locked in prison with the likes of someone that has a firm belief in the birth and body and life of the Lord Jesus. That was a long sentence.
The creation of Jesus' body ex nihilo however, is a presumption on the text and not an explicit teaching, or even a valid inference therefrom. Sure God *can* make Abraham's children out of stones--but *did* He do it in this particular instance? Frankly, I don't see any evidence that He did.
Not explicit: Remember when the Lord criticises the Saducees about who will be married to whom when we are dead? Remember His criticism of the type of scriptural "teaching". It is this that causes me to look so closely at things that seem strange.
Heaven knows I'm in enough trouble with the Catholics these days so I'll be brief.
The issue I don't think is whether Mary did or did not physically contribute to the miracle of the birth of Christ. Rather was the miracle performed using solely Mary or was there a "Godly" seed implanted in Mary. I believe it was argue (I can't quite remember) that it was solely Mary. I feel sin is past throught the male (the sin of Adam) and thus we NEEDED a virgin birth to create a new Adam which is Christ our Lord (and He was more than a new Adam).
This is pure conjecture on both our parts. And you're right. This gets into the HOW which is not addressed.
Hello from a dead thread!
Just wanted to know if you have any links to music available online to demonstrate how this is chanted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.