Has Your Bible Become A Quran?

blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings ^ | Fr. Stephen Freeman

[dangus]

You’re interpreting what you’re seeing based on what confirms your previously-held presumptions, and not listening to people who are telling you what you are doing.

How do I know? Because I’m telling you, as a Catholic, “we do not pray to statues,” and you’re arguing with me that we do.

[dangus]

Well, since the Orthodox are NOT papist, I presume you’re referring to people such as me, since I wrote cautiously approvingly of the post.

You ask, “If Christianity was not a religion of a book, why did the preaching of the church rely upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power to establish it, and reference the OT about 250 times? What not just quote oral tradition and not reprove ignorance of Scripture?”

What I already wrote was, “Truly, the bible is an expression of the Holy Tradition given to the Church by Christ. And while anything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition, and while it sustains that Holy Tradition, and while it breathes the life of that Holy Tradition within the reader of it, it is NOT the temporal source of that Holy Tradition” for the Holy Tradition pre-existed was what the apostles and prophets wrote down when they wrote the bible.

So, to answer your question: Jesus, Paul and others used the Old Testament sources to prove that what they were saying was consistent with scripture. Mind you, not that it was based solely on scripture! It was not within the power of human reason to have anticipated the ways in which Jesus would fulfill scripture!

>> The exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will (predestination) are hallmarks of Muslim thought. They eventually become hallmarks within certain forms of Christian scholasticism. <<

Incredibly, you seem to think that you disprove this statement by demonstrating that God is sovereign. The author is not saying that God is not soveriegn; he’s saying that Christian scholasticism exalted this fact in ways that resemble Muslim thought.

>>Here a false dilemma is employed, yet to confess the Lord Jesus is a confession of submission, but which does not mean compelled such as under Rome’s “coercive jurisdiction.”. >>

The fact that you just presumed an Orthodox priest is demanding that one submit to “Rome’s ‘coercive jurisdiction’ “ should alert you that you are badly misreading the statement.

>> Which is neither an infallible perpetuated papal office nor EO “priests,” both of which are contrary to Scripture, and thus the attempt to marginalize Scripture and elevate men “above that which is written.” <<

Once again: “”[A]nything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition,”

[ravenwolf]

That is right, if it is not written in scripture we do not need it.

[Springfield Reformer]

No, we are fully aware of the rationalization. This had been argued many times. What we have a hard time accepting is the use of any statuary in any way associated with the divine worship, after God spent thousands of years conditioning Israel to reject the same. This suggests His disapproval runs much deeper than the absurdly narrow case of some primitive thinking a pile of wood or stone might somehow respond to his requests for aid.

What could it be then? For one thing, all such statuary is inherently a lie. It does not accurately represent the thing it alleges to represent. Assume for the sake of argument we could agree on the elimination of all created beings as the mental focus of prayer or any degree of worship. We would still have statues of Jesus. But we cannot represent the divine being in manufactured and false images of His physical being. He is glorified now. John saw Him in Revelation, and no image can capture that, or stimulate in the soul the impetus to true worship that His true presence inspires.

Bottom line, images are a cheat, not so much on God, but on us. What did God choose to give us as the mental focus for worship? All that Jesus said and did, recorded in a book. We come to the story of His birth, and we are told of heavenly choirs of angels greeting His arrival among us. We go to the Gospel stories and we read how He raised Lazarus from the dead and calmed the wind and the sea. We read of Him dying for our sins and rising from the dead and being exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father, where He Himself condescends to be our personal intercessor and advocate before the Father.

Given all that, we can fully understand why He would command ee should make no attempt to represent Him out of our own feeble imaginations. All our statues do is cheat us of His truth. He loves us, and is jealous for us, and will not give His glory to another, and a statue, no matter how well intended, is always ... not Him.

And beyond this, even if you say these manufactured bits of nothing are only aids to worship and not the true object of worship, there are many, many people in the world who are much less able to make those fine distinctions. These are the ones who think they please God by bringing gifts to the statues, dressing them up, taking them on parades, etc. These are souls that are not able to keep their true mental worship only on God, and look past the statuary. These souls are being defiled daily by a religious system that fosters rather than forbids this kind of fawning over mere objects. This is why, though Paul says there is nothing in a statue, and foods offered to such are not unclean, yet he testifies he would have nothing to do with such things, if it could harm the souls of the weak. In Revelation, Jesus confirms this as forbidden, so we know Paul’s position is the right policy.

But even if you dismissed all of the above, there is a line crossed in the theory of transubstantiation, which makes out a wafer to be very God. This is an all or nothing proposition. If this object is not God, if in fact it is nothing but medieval alchemy falsely superimposed on a simple memorial by which we are to think of our Savior’s dying love for us, then any adoration offered it is by definition idolatrous, which no amount of rationalization can rescue.

So we do understand the means by which you seek to justify each of these practices. But we cannot overcome the impression that God forbade these practices for good reason, either because we cannot safely differentiate worship from its visual intermediary, or because God Himself does not accept the sophistry, and sees both as rejection of His clear commands. Like my dad used to day, that’s a risk I’m not willing to take. You can keep the statuary. I’ll keep my Bible. Thanks all the same.

Peace,

SR

[dangus]

>> What we have a hard time accepting is the use of any statuary in any way associated with the divine worship <<

See, now THAT’S an honest comment. But Iscool didn’t say, “Catholics pray in the presence of statues in a way that is uncomfortably similar to the practices of pagans which God prohibited.”

>> God spent thousands of years conditioning Israel to reject the same. <<

He also didn’t say, “Catholics don’t interpret the bible the way the Jews do.” You want a discussion about whether Christians should follow the Jews’ Iconoclasty? Fine THERE’S a reasonable debate.

But you say, “No, we are fully aware of the rationalization.” That stubbornly insists that we aren’t merely praying in the presence of statues, but that we actually are praying TO statues. And that’s simply slanderous. A rationalization would have been if I tried to argue that it was, in fact, OK to pray to statues. But no-one’s making that argument. I’m saying we don’t pray to statues.

What did God prohibit? Obeying false gods. It’s not like the bible didn’t provide examples! If you want to see what praying to a statue looks like, Read the book of Daniel, which depicts the prophet having to prove to the Babylonians that their statue doesn’t come alive and eat their offerings or issue commands.

Do did God really spend thousands of years conditioning the Jews not to pray in the presence of a statue? Absolutely not. In fact, through Moses he commanded them to bow their heads to a statue of a seraph!

>> But even if you dismissed all of the above, there is a line crossed in the theory of transubstantiation, which makes out a wafer to be very God. This is an all or nothing proposition. If this object is not God, if in fact it is nothing but medieval alchemy falsely superimposed on a simple memorial by which we are to think of our Savior’s dying love for us, then any adoration offered it is by definition idolatrous, which no amount of rationalization can rescue. <<

Ah, this is a whole different argument. We do not pray to statues. We do pray to God in the form of the eucharist. And not just prayer, in the sense you will find archaic references to praying to saints. The word, “pray” archaically means to ask or supplicate; hence a court filing is actually called a prayer in many states, but in that sense, we’re talking full-blown worship. That type of prayer is called “adoration,” and oh, yes, that is exactly what the bible forbids us to do to false gods, or anyone else but God, Himself.

See, I don’t shrink away from controversy! When another thread turned to bones in a church, I told him all about how there’s remnants of dead people in churches far more than he knew! I won’t hide the truth! We Catholics adore the Eucharist! That’s one reason why we God Luther’s “consubstantiation!” How can something be God and bread at the same time? That’s why we reject some Protestant’s notion that Christ is present in the bread if the believer believes he is receiving Christ by consuming the bread: How can God be present or not present depending on a notion in someone’s brain?

But this is a topic where Catholics uphold what the bible actually says, and Protestants brush it away as mere symbolism! “THIS IS MY BODY. TAKE OF IT AND EAT”

[daniel1212]

I was careful the second time to word it that Luther removed them FROM THE CANON

But since some RC scholars also did not hold them as Scripture proper, why could not Luther's dissent from a disputable canon? The fact that you could, and that Rome wanted to be void Luther's objection, moved her to make acceptance of those book mandatory, yet many did not want to make it an article of faith.

Yet despite this or in ignorance of the facts, RCs regularly present Luther as a maverick in rejecting books, as if he did not have Catholic company. And indeed Jerome was one.

he treated them the same way he treated the Old Testament dueterocanonicals, and defamed them in his commentary (”as epistle of straw” ... “certainly not a description of a the Christian God”)

Which is typical polemical language and such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude. As Swan so often shows, rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic.

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,  compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[51]

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[52] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[53]  For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[54]

And unlike Rome, Luther did not declare that his judgment was in any way binding, and like early Catholic church fathers, his views were evolving. He also cited and preached from the book of James, as in Lectures on Genesis:

“Thus God’s testing is a fatherly one, for James says in his letter (1:13): “God is not a tempter for evil”; that is, He does not test in order that we may fear and hate Him like a tyrant but to the end that He may exercise and stir up faith and love in us. Satan, however, tempts for evil, in order to draw you away from God and to make you distrust and blaspheme God.”[77].

The Catholic Church had pointed out to him where the doctrines such as purgatory, participation for the expiation for sins, the need for faith to be made manifest in work, etc., were located, utterly contradicting his assertion that they were not scriptural. THEN he responded by declaring that the books could not be scriptural.

That motivation is certainly plausibly part of it though you do not know Luther's mind before hand on the canon and whether he doubted some books as others, and for which he could enlist scholarly reasons (indeed, there is no cross in James, and only twice mentions Christ and the church once, and much reads like Jewish wisdom literature).

In 1520 he wrote,   “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”[55]

Yet the same motivation for rejection can just as validly be ascribed to Rome in taking the step to infallibly decree the disputed books part of the canon.

The Catholic Church had pointed out to him where the doctrines such as purgatory, participation for the expiation for sins, the need for faith to be made manifest in work, etc., were located, utterly contradicting his assertion that they were not scriptural.

Again what you give with one hand you take back with the other. For while you allow "there had always been substantial grey shades to the biblical canon until the Council of Trent; before then, there had never been a universal synod declaring the content of the canons," which means the canon was disputable, you then go back to charging Luther with dissent based upon the premise that these books were indisputably settled as Scripture by Rome.

Moreover, that even now Catholicism can utterly contradict this assertion that doctrines such as purgatory are not scriptural is a mere assertion. 2Mac does not even teach the prayers being offered was to obtain release from ongoing purgatorial purifying, but best defines it as making an OT sin offering that they may be delivered from sin and damnation and be in the resurrection of the just.

And which was for men who died due to mortal sin, idolatry being "the cause wherefore they were slain." (2Nac. 12:40)

Thus 2Mac. does not teach RC purgatory, as according to Rome those who die in mortal sin are damned (resulting in RC apologists having to resort to special pleading), and thus the offering was to deliver them from damnation and obtain the resurrection of life, while those in purgatory are assured they will be saved even if lacking indulgences.

And as for the need for faith to be made manifest in work, this was indeed what Luther himself affirmed. For while upholding that it is precisely the faith that is behind works that appropriates justification, not the merit of works, he also (as with other reformers) also certainly affirmed the necessity of works if faith was salvific. "...faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith." (Disputation Concerning Justification)

"When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith." [Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75] http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/luther-on-book-of-jamesrevisted.html.

However, there is a host of other traditions that are not seen in the NT church, which makes Rome an invisible church in Scripture despite her attempt to supprt such by her selective extrapolation from texts that do not teach them.

[daniel1212]

ure, God said not to kneel down (well, bow) to idols, but an idol is an image of a god. If it’s not a god, it’s not an idol.

As i have said, in Bible times one could not explain kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer!

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

As even St. Epiphanius is quoted by Haydoc as saying, while Haydoc violates it, "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure."

Considering that the only people who prayed anyone else in Heaven but the Lord are pagans,

and that the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture is that of pagans,

and that the only ones bowing does before idols and making requests are idolators,

and that the only one shows having the power to hear virtually infinite incessant prayers addressed to them in Heaven from earth is the Lord,

and that we are admonished not to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6)

and as Scripture does not testify to the plethora of platitudes ascribed to her, of which are those only given to God,

then we must conclude the Mary of Catholicism is not that the holy women of Scripture, and the devotion to her is much of the flesh, and likewise the visions of her, or from the devil, who seeks to bring souls to worship instruments of grace as God, who alone is exalted as Caths do to their Mary.

[daniel1212]

Truly, the bible is an expression of the Holy Tradition given to the Church by Christ. And while anything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition, and while it sustains that Holy Tradition, and while it breathes the life of that Holy Tradition within the reader of it, it is NOT the temporal source of that Holy Tradition.

However, oral "Tradition" is an amorphous "thing," that only has substance as it is expressed as Cath. doctrine, and as with Scripture, it is and only means whatever Rome says it is and means, thus Rome is the supreme authority.

Thus contradictions btwn the two, as well as btwn them and RC doctrines are disallowed by an entity which is effectively autocratic, with the veracity of her doctrines not being dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but rest upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

Which is based upon certain presuppositions, as i have seen argued, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who knowingly dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God.

I can argue against them showing that these lack Scriptural warrant, but am ultimately met with with the response that the Catholic church alone is correct since she gave is the Bible... And around and around we go.

Contrary to this is that both men and writings were essentially established as being of God due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Thus even the veracity of oral preaching, or "tradition" in the NT depended upon conflation with Scripture, and thus Scripture was the supreme authoritative standard, with the veracity of magisterial judgments dependent upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

[boatbums]

Well stated, thank you.

Do you ever get the impression reading threads like this that some people try to cover up their ignorance of sacred Scripture by appealing to and relying on their religion’s leadership authority in its place? It’s almost like they are afraid to trust the Holy Spirit to lead them in understanding the God’s word, preferring to let “them” explain it all. And they call “us” lazy?!

[daniel1212]

So, to answer your question: Jesus, Paul and others used the Old Testament sources to prove that what they were saying was consistent with scripture.

Thanks for the confirmation, as some other RCs have much marginalized the OT in this regard, as if it were superfluous to the establishment of the church.

Mind you, not that it was based solely on scripture! It was not within the power of human reason to have anticipated the ways in which Jesus would fulfill scripture!

Directly or indirectly it was based on scripture, while the fulfillment was indeed beyond what men might fully perceive.

The exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will (predestination) are hallmarks of Muslim thought. They eventually become hallmarks within certain forms of Christian scholasticism

Incredibly, you seem to think that you disprove this statement by demonstrating that God is sovereign. The author is not saying that God is not soveriegn; he’s saying that Christian scholasticism exalted this fact in ways that resemble Muslim thought.

Perhaps i was too hard, but you missed the point of "by this logic the Psalmist and Paul were influenced by Islam" and the texts i provided. For the reasoning in the article is that since "certain forms of Christian scholasticism" exalt the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will as does Islam, then it shows this came from Islam, which i see an an association fallacy.

For as showed and can be showed much more, this exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will is solidly Biblical. What he should have said is that within certain forms of Christian scholasticism the emotive side of Divine love and the degree of man's freedom of will was marginalized, such as Jesus weeping over Jerusalem out of desire to save them. But which is easily seen as due to an attempt to formulate a neat theology without any loose ends. The like can be seen in schools of eschatology.

The fact that you just presumed an Orthodox priest is demanding that one submit to “Rome’s ‘coercive jurisdiction’ “ should alert you that you are badly misreading the statement.

So just how does "there can be no conversion at the point of a sword in Christianity" not relate to Rome compelling conformity by employing the use of the sword, even if "coercive jurisdiction" more specifically refers to disciplining her own? If JFK was told to exterminate the heretics or the RCs no longer needed to obey his government, would that qualify as conversion at the point of a sword?

Once again: “”[A]nything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition,”

Which is effectively meaningless since Rome is the autocratic judge of this, and cannot really err.

[daniel1212]

Do you ever get the impression reading threads like this that some people try to cover up their ignorance of sacred Scripture by appealing to and relying on their religion’s leadership authority in its place?

But where would you get that idea on the thread? The article militates against scholasticism while an RC exalts it, and both display ignorance of Scripture.

Both Rome and the EOs use amorphous oral tradition to justify many traditions of men, most of which they hold in common, with Rome being more intellectual and less mystical in so doing, while the EOs are less precisely theological. But some of the latter do see some of craft Rome employs to justify some of her distinctives:

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

[dangus]

>> But since some RC scholars also did not hold them as Scripture proper, why could not Luther’s dissent from a disputable canon? <<

Simple. The RC scholars didn’t cling to the counter-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. If you’re going to assert that the bible is the sole source of doctrine, you’d better be certain to define what comprises the bible. For Luther, the issue was establishing Christian doctrine. For most of the RC scholars, the issue was how to convince Jews that the Old Testament foretold Christianity.

>> Which is typical polemical language and such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude. <<

So you’re saying that he believed that Lutheran Antilegomena were scripture, but he slandered them anyway, but it’s OK because he didn’t mean it, even though he based his arguments against Catholic doctrine on the presumption that they were NOT scripture and his own followers took him seriously enough to remove them from the bible until an alliance with Calvinists and Anglicans made it politically necessary to restore them. This is your DEFENSE of him?

>> For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind. <<

Fair enough, but that doesn’t in any way negate the point that without the Catholic Church, Luther was substantially confused about what the bible consisted of, nor the fact that he rested his arguments against Catholic doctrine on removing the books from the bible. If he became ashamed of this, he certainly did not confess it. Or... again... prevent several of his followers from removing the books altogether.

>> Yet the same motivation for rejection can just as validly be ascribed to Rome in taking the step to infallibly decree the disputed books part of the canon. <<

Absolutely! Had Luther not come along, the Catholic Church may never have defined the canon in the sense that Trent did. In fact, none of the other ancient churches have! Inasmuch as the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura, any Catholic definition of the canon prior to Trent was (usually explicitly) for the purpose of deciding which books to include in mass readings. Most of the alleged dissenters were merely arguing the usefulness of relying on the deuterocanonicals to convince the Jews of the OT precedents revealed in the NT: if the Jews don’t believe in the deuterocanonicals, does it make any sense to cite them?

Luther challenged them to find in the bible where certain doctrines were found, and they said “fine, we don’t agree with how you came up with your rules, but we can play by them; Here’s where those doctrines are found.” Then Luther said those books don’t count, and, finding that there had never been an infallible proclamation saying they did, the Pope gathered every bishop who could come to make sure they could all agree — including two who went in dubious — that Christian doctrine had always asserted the canonical nature of every book.

See, as much as some Protestant apologists like to believe they can, Popes can’t just make up doctrine and bind someone to it.

>> For while you allow “there had always been substantial grey shades to the biblical canon until the Council of Trent; before then, there had never been a universal synod declaring the content of the canons,” which means the canon was disputable, you then go back to charging Luther with dissent based upon the premise that these books were indisputably settled as Scripture by Rome. <<

Here’s what I meant about “shades of gray”: In the absence of either a universal synod (ecumenical council) or an infallible declaration of the pope, someone with sufficient study and authority may dispute a doctrine without being a heretic... and I allowed that some did. But these people who disputed the canon largely did so for the purpose of trying to convert Jews, not for the purpose of establishing the validity of Christian doctrine. When such people disputed the canon, they nonetheless upheld moral doctrine; Luther must be held to a higher standard because he disputed the canon for the purpose of disputing moral doctrine.

>> Moreover, that even now Catholicism can utterly contradict this assertion that doctrines such as purgatory are not scriptural is a mere assertion. 2Mac does not even teach the prayers being offered was to obtain release from ongoing purgatorial purifying, but best defines it as making an OT sin offering that they may be delivered from sin and damnation and be in the resurrection of the just. <<

Clearly, the warriors in Maccabees offered the sin offering for the sake of OTHER people, not as a personal indulgence. 2 Peter, however describes a *process* of purification “as one who passes through fire,” in which the disobedient’s works are burned up, yet they are saved despite their disobedience. Gotta go... I’ll finish up soon.

[Iscool]

See, now THAT’S an honest comment. But Iscool didn’t say, “Catholics pray in the presence of statues in a way that is uncomfortably similar to the practices of pagans which God prohibited.

And for good reason...Perhaps you don't pray to statues...But it is crystal clear that other Catholics do...

The original statue of Our Lady of Fatima had been transferred from its home at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal to St. Peter’s Square especially for the consecration. The act marked the culmination of a weekend of Marian prayer and devotion.

If your pope was praying to Mary in heaven, any symbolic statue of Mary could do...After all, it's just a statue...

Apparently that's not the case...Your pope had to pray to THIS statue...

There is no doubt in my mind that your pope is praying to this statue...

consecrate

: to officially make (something, such as a place or building) holy through a special religious ceremony

Now you have a Holy Statue...

[daniel1212]

Simple. The RC scholars didn’t cling to the counter-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. If you’re going to assert that the bible is the sole source of doctrine, you’d better be certain to define what comprises the bible.

Regardless, the protest was not that Luther rested upon Scripture as the supreme authority, which is manifestly Scriptural vs,. sola ecclesia, but that he disallowed certain books, some of which Rome invokes in trying to justify her tradition with Scripture. Luther had the right to do so, as Rome had not determine with certainty that they were Scripture proper at that point.

Your real protest is not against Luther's rejection of certain books but his reason for doing so.

So you’re saying that he believed that Lutheran Antilegomena were scripture, but he slandered them anyway, but it’s OK because he didn’t mean it,

No, it means what i said, no your polemical rhetoric, that such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude, and which you go on to basically allow. I have no idea where your Luther quote on James “certainly not a description of a the Christian God” is found by the way.

Fair enough, but that doesn’t in any way negate the point that without the Catholic Church, Luther was substantially confused about what the bible consisted of, nor the fact that he rested his arguments against Catholic doctrine on removing the books from the bible. If he became ashamed of this, he certainly did not confess it.

So are you resorting to the argument that Luther should have submitted to Rome since she claims to have given us the Bible as the discerner and steward of holy Writ? And be ashamed for dissenting from it?

Had Luther not come along, the Catholic Church may never have defined the canon in the sense that Trent did. In fact, none of the other ancient churches have! Inasmuch as the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura,..

Meaning inasmuch as Rome is her own authority, and the veracity of her teachings do not need to rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but as per Keating, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

. Most of the alleged dissenters were merely arguing the usefulness of relying on the deuterocanonicals to convince the Jews of the OT precedents revealed in the NT: if the Jews don’t believe in the deuterocanonicals, does it make any sense to cite them?

In some cases that may be an argument, but it would be a poor one if that is the only reason, as it testifies to seeing these books as only being Scripture due to their polemical value for Jews. They did not have to use them if they thought etc. purgatory needed no explanation from them to Jews, but they easily could have affirmed then as Scripture as they did NT books

But these people who disputed the canon largely did so for the purpose of trying to convert Jews, not for the purpose of establishing the validity of Christian doctrine. When such people disputed the canon, they nonetheless upheld moral doctrine; Luther must be held to a higher standard because he disputed the canon for the purpose of disputing moral doctrine.

This canonical dispute went on for well over a millennium, and I find this explanation based on attribution specious. You rest much upon motive, and by so doing you excuse those who did not uphold books as Scripture which are essential to support RC doctrine, thus indirectly supporting their denial due to lack of support, then condemn Luther for rejecting them in dissenting from said doctrine.

Clearly, the warriors in Maccabees offered the sin offering for the sake of OTHER people, not as a personal indulgence. 2 Peter, however describes a *process* of purification “as one who passes through fire,” in which the disobedient’s works are burned up, yet they are saved despite their disobedience.

I did not say it was a personal indulgence, but that they were making an offering to save damned souls who died in judgment for their mortal sin, not as purgatory who is not for damned souls. Thus 2Mac. 12 does not teach purgatory, only that offerings can be made for mortal souls, contra Rome. Whose purgatory is even rejected by most EOs (who have a different if ambiguous one).

Gotta go... I’ll finish up soon.

Take your time.

[AnalogReigns]

Hmmm, this thread reminds me of:

[Springfield Reformer]

You appear to interpret me as saying this, as if it were as simple as discomfort:

Catholics pray in the presence of statues in a way that is uncomfortably similar to the practices of pagans which God prohibited

Iscool didn't say that, and I didn't say that either. What I said was: "What we have a hard time accepting is the use of any statuary in any way associated with the divine worship."  The command of God was not "you may build whatever you like as long as you keep your thoughts clear on who you're really worshiping."  No, He forbade the creation of any image to which one might bow down in an act of reverence:

Lev 26:1  Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Please note that this does not specify you can create such statuary as aids to worship of the true God, as if that escapes the problem. As both Iscool and I have pointed out, good intentions notwithstanding, if you make such an image, some will reverence it for more than what it is, mere wood or stone or even brass.

That would include images of God the Son as well as God the Father.  But it's more than just images of gods. Idolatry in the NT, like all of God's commands, runs to the heart, and is not confined to ceramic saviors.  It would include any being, or any object, being elevated above measure and put in some relation to a person where only God should be:

1Co 10:7-14  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.  (8)  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.  (9)  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.  (10)  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.  (11)  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.  (12)  Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.  (13)  There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.  (14)  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

That sequence recalls the incident with the golden calf in the wilderness. Notice how Paul brackets all of those misdeeds with idolatry. The interesting thing is, the children of Israel didn't explicitly reject God. They knew the golden calf was not the divine being in person, but only a representation.  They knew some sort of deity or deities had helped them escape from Egypt, and they were even ready to throw a party for God, including an altar for sacrifice:

Exo 32:3-5  And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.  (4)  And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.  (5)  And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.

But it was because their imaginations were carnal, that they pictured this supernatural force in physical terms they already understood, and so turned to the golden calf as their "visual aid."

Furthermore, for New Testament Christians, idolatry may encompass spiritual sins for which there is no physical representation of deity at all:

Col 3:5  Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

The reality is, we are all, owing to original sin, natural polytheists. We have many things in our heart that compete with God for our attention and become in some way substitutes for Him.  This is why we should not tempt God by making images of anything supposedly deities in themselves, or mere channels to the world unseen.

SR: God spent thousands of years conditioning Israel to reject the same. 

Dangus: He also didn’t say, “Catholics don’t interpret the bible the way the Jews do.” You want a discussion about whether Christians should follow the Jews’ Iconoclasty? Fine THERE’S a reasonable debate.

It isn't exclusively Jewish to reject idols. It's a direct consequence of divine teaching, and it applies equally well in a Christian context:

Act 15:19-20  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:  (20)  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

But you say, “No, we are fully aware of the rationalization.” That stubbornly insists that we aren’t merely praying in the presence of statues, but that we actually are praying TO statues. And that’s simply slanderous. A rationalization would have been if I tried to argue that it was, in fact, OK to pray to statues. But no-one’s making that argument. I’m saying we don’t pray to statues.

The statues aren't necessary to real prayer at all. Whatever sort of prayer that requires their presence, requires them for some reason unhealthy to prayer. You are not just accidentally praying where there just accidentally happens to be some statue. The statue is necessarily being incorporated into the act of prayer, else it's presence makes no sense. In Paul's teaching we learn that, while everything is lawful, not everything is expedient, i.e., that certain things are to be avoided, not just because the pagans did them, but because participating in them lends itself to spiritual evil, if not immediately to you, then very likely to someone around you.

What did God prohibit? Obeying false gods. It’s not like the bible didn’t provide examples! If you want to see what praying to a statue looks like, Read the book of Daniel, which depicts the prophet having to prove to the Babylonians that their statue doesn’t come alive and eat their offerings or issue commands.

Merely one form of idolatry.  As explained above, there is a more general definition.  Statuary of foreign deities is only part of the problem.

Do did God really spend thousands of years conditioning the Jews not to pray in the presence of a statue? Absolutely not. In fact, through Moses he commanded them to bow their heads to a statue of a seraph!

 שׂרף (seraph) means burning snake, possibly because of the pattern of color on its skin, or because of the poisonous bites.  If you read the passage in Numbers 21, there is no call to bow heads.  Exactly the opposite.  They were to look up to the brass snake, not bow.  Jesus claims this brass snake as a typological representation of Himself.  

Joh 3:14-15  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:  (15)  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

So we have to resolve this apparent conflict.  On the one hand, God has said don't make images that represent deity.  But we know this image does represent Christ. What is the difference between this and, say, a crucifix with Jesus on it? Several differences, but one most important: God commanded the creation of this image.  Just as He commanded the creation of the ark of the covenant.  Just as the Holy Spirit enabled Mary to give birth to Jesus.  God does interact with the physical world.  But only according to His own purposes.  The burning snake on a pole was a prophecy, given by God, of Messiah being crucified.  We were all bitten by the fiery serpent of original sin, and so all doomed to die. But if we only look up to Jesus, made to be sin for us, the sum of all innocence being crucified as if He were the sum of all evil, if we look to Him and not ourselves, we can be cured. The poison will not kill us.

But what of when we invent such images on our own?  Images per se may not be against God's own divine prerogative as our Creator, but they are against His law for us as mere creatures. This "seraph" of yours, BTW, what became of it?  It gradually became an object of worship in it's own right, and King Hezekiah, doing here what the Lord approved of, destroyed it, lest it be a spiritual snare to his people:

2Ki 18:1-4  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 brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Iconoclasm with divine approval. And as we have already shown, in the New Testament we also have the same rule, and though we are not saved by rule-keeping, because none of us can win that game, we are obligated to be faithful servants of Christ who love good and reject evil. And so we must reject not only idolatry in it's most blatant and obvious forms, but also where it lies hidden behind rationalizations and sophistry and the darkness of human desire for anything but God to be first in our thoughts and sentiments.

SR: But even if you dismissed all of the above, there is a line crossed in the theory of transubstantiation, which makes out a wafer to be very God. This is an all or nothing proposition. If this object is not God, if in fact it is nothing but medieval alchemy falsely superimposed on a simple memorial by which we are to think of our Savior’s dying love for us, then any adoration offered it is by definition idolatrous, which no amount of rationalization can rescue. <<

Dangus: Ah, this is a whole different argument. We do not pray to statues. We do pray to God in the form of the eucharist. And not just prayer, in the sense you will find archaic references to praying to saints. The word, “pray” archaically means to ask or supplicate; hence a court filing is actually called a prayer in many states, but in that sense, we’re talking full-blown worship. That type of prayer is called “adoration,” and oh, yes, that is exactly what the bible forbids us to do to false gods, or anyone else but God, Himself.

So then you concede that if your doctrine of transubstantiation is false, if your wafer really is, in every relevant sense, just a wafer, then the adoration of it would be what you admit to be idol worship. So you will understand why the inability of Rome to demonstrate the truthfulness of this cluster of teachings is an impassible barrier to those of us who wish to avoid idolatry. 

See, I don’t shrink away from controversy! When another thread turned to bones in a church, I told him all about how there’s remnants of dead people in churches far more than he knew! I won’t hide the truth! We Catholics adore the Eucharist! That’s one reason why we God Luther’s “consubstantiation!” How can something be God and bread at the same time? 

This is an odd objection, because all the time we evangelicals are pounded with  allegations we doubt the miraculous because we do not accept the quasi-Aristotelian shell game that is transubstantiation.  Yet here you object to "consubstantiation" (not so called among Lutherans, BTW, but rather "sacramental union") because you do not think God capable of creating such a relationship between divine and mortal substances?  If God is free to divest the bread of all it's "bread-ness" while leaving no evidence of such a miracle in the so-called "accidence" of the bread (it's materially discernable traits), then why not a holy union of substances, or any other number of amazing relationships beyond our ability to comprehend? 

So I would be cautious holding back from God any power of miracle.  The only limitation is what God in His own creation forbids in the very nature of things, such as logical absurdities, a bird that can fly and can't fly at the same time in the same way, a number being itself and some other number at the same time and in the same way, a two-dimensional circle being a two-dimensional square on the same piece of paper, and so forth.

Just as amazing, no, MORE amazing, consider that God might wish us to partake of the bread and wine so that in our spirits, where the greatest miracles of all take place, God wishes us to remember the once for all sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, and to apply to our once dead, now living hearts, the lessons of that redemptive love, to draw us closer to fellowship with Him through His Holy Spirit, and closer to our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, which is His ecclesia, all of whom have an equal share in His atonement.

That’s why we reject some Protestant’s notion that Christ is present in the bread if the believer believes he is receiving Christ by consuming the bread: How can God be present or not present depending on a notion in someone’s brain?

Again, you are predicating what the Lord's supper might be based on a question for which you admittedly do not have an answer.  We all agree that in one sense God is everywhere at all times.  But not in all ways.  Jesus the Son of God is seated at the right hand of God the Father, and intercedes for us in Heaven, which intercession we much need. But He will not be present on the earth in any corporeal form until He returns in the clouds for His bride, and to seal the judgment of the lost.  If Jesus can say, where two or three are gathered in His name, He is among them, we know He is speaking spiritually, not of the divine omnipresence, but of His special, self-revealing presence to His children, by which we know His love experientially, and not merely historically.

But this is a topic where Catholics uphold what the bible actually says, and Protestants brush it away as mere symbolism! “THIS IS MY BODY. TAKE OF IT AND EAT”

No sadly, but the one who holds up what the Bible actually says will not judge the divine word carnally but spiritually.  The carnal mind cannot apprehend the things of God.  They are foolishness to him. They see metaphors where there are none and miss metaphors where they are fairly screaming to be heard.  Jesus specifically told us why He gave us the Lord's Supper.  It was not to confer on us eternal life for participation in a ritual. That gift of eternal life we know from many other Scriptures is the consequence of belief in the Son of God, and sealed with the Holy Spirit, not bread and wine, however reconstituted by Aquinas.  But Jesus did tell us the purpose of our participation in this meal:

Luk 22:19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Should He have said, "this do, or die in your sins?" According to Rome, yes. But not according to Jesus. The purpose given is remembrance. Jesus is very God.  If we add to His words, and extend His purpose to include what He intentionally left out, we make an idol of our our religious imagination, and place ourselves at risk of missing the sweetest miracle of all, to walk obediently with our Savior.

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

Has Your Bible Become A Quran?

Have your TRADITIONS created a Sunni/Shiite split?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I try to adhere to Judaism too. But you wouldn’t blanket condemn Christianity, would you?

We've been through this a zillion times, doug. Neither you nor I adhere to Judaism. Jews adhere to Judaism. Non-Jews adhere to the Noachide Laws. Which, btw, exclude the practice of chrstianity or any other false religion.

Still "wrestling with G-d," aren't you?

No way the Jews could have founded the United States by themselves.

So? You think there is something messianic or eschatological about the United States?

[Zionist Conspirator]

This may be so for Protestantism but not for Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

True. Catholics and Orthodox believe in chrstianity because their churches tell them to. For Protestants the bible authorizes G-d. For Catholics/Orthodox, the church does.

Same thing.

Our faith is based on the testimony of the Apostles as it has been handed down by the Church. These men gave their lives for what they witnessed. They were commissioned by Jesus Christ as the first leaders of a living and visible church empowered by the Holy Spirit. This divinely established church continues today under the pastoral leadership of the pope (for Catholics, not the Orthodox) and the bishops.

But why believe in J*sus or chrstianity at in the first place, especially when G-d had already spoken at Sinai? You seem to have missed my point altogether. By "new testament" I was referring not just to the book, but to the concept. Why believe J*sus had the authority to found a church, hmm? Like the Protestants, you assume from the get-go that J*sus was "gxd" and had the authority to do all this. Have you ever examined this assumption?

It is by the authority of the Church that the validity and inspiration of the Scriptures is received.

First of all, the Catholic/Orthodox churches don't really believe in Biblical inspiration. After all, they've adopted nineteenth century liberal Protestant Biblical criticism in order to justify their oral traditions (something the Jews have never had to do).

This is the point that the (Orthodox) author was trying to make when he says that Christians are not People of the Book. He is also implying that the Protestant reduction of the faith to being a "People of the Book" is a distortion introduced from Islam.

You (and the author) could just as easily have said it was adopted from Judaism, but I notice you choose to ignore that and pretend the concept of a perfect, divine book was invented by moslems. You don't know much about the traditional beliefs about or transmission of the Torah, do you? Aren't you the guy who wants to give half of Israel to the Arabs?

[onedoug]

Yes, I do. I believe that Israel and America are chosen of God to compel Liberty in the world.

And I will try to adhere to anything I want, thanks.