Posted on 07/10/2007 8:00:34 AM PDT by Bladerunnuh
Auhority? Whose?
Yes, they do. The following is from Wikipedia:
Hindus perform their worship through icons (murti), such as statues or paintings symbolic of God's power and glory. The icon serves as a tangible link between the worshipper and God. Another view is that the image is a manifestation of God, since God is immanent. The Padma Purana states that the mūrti is not to be thought of as mere stone or wood but as a manifest form of the Divinity.
We pray to Mary and the Saints as fellow Christians who are no longer in the Church Militant (here on Earth) but have joined the Church Triumphant (in Heaven). They are alive in Christ and we ask for their prayers as we would ask any other Christian to pray for us. We are one congregation as we believe in the communion of saints expressed by the Creed. Statues and other imagery are not worshipped as anything more than pictures of relatives we miss.
Icons, on the other hand, are something a little more special. Just as the people only had to touch Jesus's cloak or have Peter's shadow pass over them for an imposition of grace so to we venerate those items of saints as having been touched by the divine.
I do, actually. It is you who lacks a clue as to when the initial programs were loaded.
Ok, what’s a boot-strap then?
Why are these bits of code called such?
Okay...
The Padma Purana states that the mūrti is not to be thought of as mere stone or wood but as a manifest form of the Divinity.
Mūrti, by the way, means 'a statue' or 'a figurine'. And this is in no way different to a Christian showing respect to a statue of Jesus or Mary (If not, would they defile one? I think not), or Catholics who kiss relics and fragments, as acts of reverence to God.
|
KRISHNA:
|
|
| Rejects not—that last lore, deepest-concealed, | |
| That farthest secret of My Heavens and Earths, | |
| Which but to know shall set thee free from ills,— | |
| A Royal lore! a Kingly mystery! | 5 |
| Yea! for the soul such light as purgeth it | |
| From every sin; a light of holiness | |
| With inmost splendor shining; plain to see; | |
| Easy to walk by, inexhaustible! | |
| They that receive not this, failing in faith | 10 |
| To grasp the greater wisdom, reach not Me, | |
| Destroyer of thy foes! They sink anew | |
| Into the realm of Flesh, where all things change! | |
| By Me the whole vast Universe of things | |
| Is spread abroad;—by Me, the Unmanifest! | 15 |
| In Me are all existences contained; | |
| Not I in them! | |
| Yet they are not contained, | |
| Those visible things! Receive and strive to embrace | |
| The mystery majestical! My Being— | 20 |
| Creating all, sustaining all—still dwells | |
| Outside of all! | |
| See! as the shoreless airs | |
| Move in the measureless space, but are not space, | |
| [And space were space without the moving airs]; | 25 |
| So all things are in Me, but are not I. |
The Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter IX.
Wikipedia is now being cited to address issues of faith?
What? Are the words of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger written in red?
One arguement at a time, buddy. My answer to you is yes, using it as citation is fine so long as the usual caveats apply.
No. Remember that's what's being venerated here in the minds of those partaking this ritual is the Blood of Christ and it is by that Blood by which we are redemmed.
The caveat about the site being able to be biased? Esp. in regards to politics or religion?
To which caveats, dear brother, are you refering?
I don't think any one who prays to a block of carved stone or wood fragments to begin with, does so in any other way, Catholics or otherwise.
I think what Earthbound meant to say was that although WikiPedia can be edited by anyone, most of the stuff found there can be judged by a sensible reader, if they have a bias or not.
For that matter, why should other sources be placed on a higher pedestal over Wikipedia? Just because it can’t be edited by someone other than those whom the webmaster allows? What if the webmaster is biased, to begin with?
Note: Your quote for St John Chrysostom does not appear in your citation. I read the homily and it is not germaine.
I can't find your quote from St Origen anywhere... can you provide a citation?
I offer you these other quotes from St Augustine:
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).
God is not limited to one understanding of His Word. It is deep with meaning and in many instances has more than one. In this instance, Peter's confession of faith is the rock on which the Church will be built but Jesus also gives Peter the name of "rock" to be the one to hold that faith firm.
Nailed it.
That's true and that's the point.
If in your mind you are praying to a block of carved stone or wood fragments, you are committing idolatry.
If that is the case you agree with, then there is no idolatry anywhere on earth. Even the tribal from the farthest-most corner of the earth prays to that spear of his to arouse the "spirits", not to arouse the spear itself.
I would correct this statement (because, again, you are limiting Christianity to only the New Testament)... Jews don't know Jesus, but we embrace our full heritage in the family of God.
Our story begins at the beginning. The New Testament is forshadowed in the Old and the Old is fulfilled in the New. Without the New Testament, the Old Testament is just a narrative and it's unfulfilled. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament lacks context... that's why so much is referenced back.
It's the small initial program that forms the basis for the larger program. By this analogy, then, you are saying that Adam was incomplete?
It is fine as a basic reference on an objective topic. I wouldn't use it for a serious reference on a subjective topic. Can we get back to the topic at hand without the snide attitude?
<<<”True Protestants do not worship goddesses or saints... we worship Jesus Christ, making us actual Christians.”>>>
You must be living in a vacuum to make such a statement. There is only 0ne (1) Who is Worshiped and Glorified, Jesus Christ, Who with the Father and Holy Spirit are One God.
<<<”He did not command the Apostles to go out and build their churches for Him.”>>>>
Your statement has just blown St. Paul out of the Scriptures
Now tell me? What do we do with St. Paul’s Epistles to the Churches?
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.