A Response to Catholics (Edited Title)

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Bugay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a testament to the owner of this site that you are allowed to continue your discourse here.
I think your comments should be kept for all to see and examine more closely.

I have no idea who you were or are now, what you knew or did not know about the catholic faith, and why you would ask questions like this that expose your ignorance to the catholic faith on such a wide read forum.

What will make you happy and at peace at this point in your journey?
Why can’t I read this as a non theist and feel as if I have learned something about Jesus?
 
John_Bugay said:
What should one think of an organization that claims to be authoritative, and yet which sanctions “dulia and hyper-dulia” – bowing down before images of things on the earth?
Click to expand...
Latria is the Greek word for the honor a creature owes the Creator. According to Catholic teaching, this type of honor (which is usually translated as “worship” or “adoration” in English) is only to be given to the persons of the Holy Trinity.

Dulia is the Greek word for the honor a creature may give to another creature. Obviously God approves of humans honoring other humans because he commanded us to “honor” our fathers and mothers.

Mary is given a special kind of honor (for reasons I will outline below). This special honor is called hyper-dulia but it is still not the honor associated with latria.

And now I would like you to consider this:

1) The Ten Commandments tell us to honor our mothers.

2) Jesus gave Mary perfect honor, at least in terms of the honor a son is to give his mother. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus did not perfectly follow the Ten Commandments.

3) According to the Bible, the Church is composed of a head: Jesus, and a body: Christians.

4) The head of the Church has a mother, and that mother is Mary. The mother of the head of the Church is likewise the mother of the body. To say otherwise is to say that the head and the body are not truly united.

5) Therefore, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of the Church, including all the Christians who make up the body (and that includes you).

6) Because Jesus gave his mother perfect honor, Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) honor Mary in imitation of Jesus. Although we are unable to do anything perfectly, we can strive to give Mary as high degree of honor as we can (so long as we do not cross the line in doing acts of worship). Hence, the various Marian devotions that we do (as officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church) are manifestations of the term hyper-dulia.

My question for you, John, is what do you do to give Mary the honor she is owed, seeing as she is your mother?
 
I was really expecting more of a response from Mr. Bugay than what he gave in the above post.
 
I read the book in its original German. Contrary to amateur interpretation…
Click to expand...
This is precisely what got John embarassed on Beggars All which led to his departure from that blog but I see he is still defending his thesis which he admit was built on not reading the context and relying on faulty interpretations.
 
Omega_Protein said:
This is precisely what got John embarrassed on Beggars All which led to his departure from that blog but I see he is still defending his thesis which he admit was built on not reading the context and relying on faulty interpretations.
Click to expand...
I believe that the reason that this work did not get great publicity is because it is not one of his major works. It’s really a paraphrase of a lot the writings of St. Augustine and St. Bonaventure whom Father Ratzinger, his proper name at that time, was and still is very fond of. It’s not well written either. It’s clunky.

One of the things that people just have to get over is this idea that every pope has to use Thomas Aquinas as his point of reference. This is not the case. There is no binding law in the Church that says this. Popes have often used him, because they were trained in Thomism and Scholastic Theology. However, Thomas was not the only Scholastic Theologian. Not everyone is trained in Thomism. All of us who have advanced degree is theology have studied Aquinas. It would be an incomplete education not to read some of his writings. However, many of us prefer Augustine, Bonaventure, and other teachers. Pope Benedict is one of those people.

He likes writing in the style of Bonaventure and Augustine. He likes referring back to them and paraphrasing what they had written. You can see him slip Aquinas in there when Augustine and Bonaventure do not address a point. However, when the three of them speak on the same point, Pope Benedict seems to have a predilection for Augustine, Bonaventure and Aquinas in that order. That’s OK> None of them is teaching heresy. They’re all saying the same thing, but coming at it from very different perspectives and using very different wording.

This poster’s reference to the fact that Pope Benedict cites De Chardin and uses this as a justification to call the pope a pantheist is ludicrous. First of all, De Chardin was not a pantheist. Second, not everything that De Chardin wrote was wrong. Much of it was very difficult to understand. Third, De Chardin made some mistakes, but he also said some very good things. Fourth, the Holy Father makes references to the valuable things that Fr. De Chardin wrote. And fifth, Fr. De Chardin did not die outside of the Church nor was he ever condemned by the Church. There were points in his writings that were rejected by the Church, not everything and not the man.

The poster also refers to Fr. Hans Kung. There is another fallacy. Pope John Paul II stripped Fr. Kung of his license to teach Catholic theology, because what Father was teaching was not Catholic. However, Father accepted the consequences. His response was that he could not change his thinking, but he would honor the Holy Father’s command. He never raised a fuss. Less than a month after the election, Pope Benedict invited Fr. Kung to visit with him and have lunch. Father Kung had been Father Ratzinger’s boss. Out of the luncheon the two men came out agreeing on several important things: 1) They are both priests. 2) They both love the Church. 3) They are still friends. 4) They respect and admire each other’s intelligence. and 5) Pope Benedict appointed Fr. Kung to direct the Ecumenical work in his homeland. In other words, contrary to what has been presented, Father Kung was not put on the shelf by either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict. He was corrected and disciplined. He accepted the correction like a gentleman and took the consequences.

He still disagrees with Pope Benedict on many issues. Pope Benedict knows it; however, Pope Benedict respects him, because there is one quality to Father Kung that the Holy Father seems to appreciate. Father Kung does not claim that he has the sole possession of truth. He claims that the has an argument that should be considered. From there, it’s up to the Vatican to consider it or not and Father doesn’t seem to get too upset when his proposals are not considered. My take is that there is not the antagonism between the Vatican and Father Kung that the poster and his source claim that there is. Fr. Kung was certainly not assigned to some remote pastorship. That’s just not true. He is very old now, if he’s even alive. I believe that he’s older than Pope Benedict.

As Marco Polo eloquently stated, Ott is being misquoted. As I said, Ut Unum Sint is being misquoted and other works are being quoted out of context.

When people start to read into things that are not there or quote apologists who have an ax to grind, it sends up my red flags.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Church_Militant said:
Where? Where!? :eek:
Click to expand...
The Jesuits, they lurk in the darkness, be weary! :eek:

I’ll give a thorough read through of the OP’s points in a second, although it appears that posters before me have given a detailed response, so I may pop in if a new argument is made (:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
John,

While it’s apparent to me that you have a higher education, than myself, I am not convinced by your arguments.

There was an authoritative Church established by Christ. This belief does not rest upon a single verse, which by the way would be more than the belief of ‘sola scriptura’, or the private interpretation of scriptures, rests. Paul wrote, ‘That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,’ Paul also wrote, ‘Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.’

Looking only at the second verse provided, Hebrews 13:17, we see the Church was instructed to ‘obey your prelates’. There is no where in scriptures that anyone was ‘self appointed’, or appointed by others without authority, in the Church. Even when Paul was ‘converted’ he went to the Apostles, for confirmation. Most all of Protestantism is built upon ‘self appointments’, or appointments by those without authority in the Church. Who are those ‘prelates’ in the Churches of Protestantism?

Show us in scriptures where God told the ‘multitudes’, laypersons, they were to receive ‘private revelations’ of scriptures? Peter told us the prophecy scriptures did not come of private interpretation. The prophecy the Apostles wrote about were those that pointed to Christ, as written in the Old Testament. There was no New Testament. Christ built a Church and not a ‘Bible’ during His ministry.

Scriptures show us how people interpreted scriptures in Nehemiah 8.

Your presentation on statues ignores scriptures of instructions from the Lord. Tell us the specific instructions given on building the ark of the covenant. Why was it acceptable for Solomon to use images in building the Temple? When, at a later time than that, did it become unacceptable to use images in the house of God?
God gave Moses instructions to create an image to save the people. Wouldn’t this have been a ‘temptation’ to the people to ‘worship’? Not if they understood the holy from God.

You’re not here to pull Catholics away from the Church, but only to ‘warn’ Protestants about the Church? What Church do you direct Protestants too? Which Church has all the correct doctrines of the Lord?
Click to expand...
Indeed! Which Church?
 
You people realize that 1.7 million Franciscan men and women (during our low vocation days) can kick the Opus Dei’s and Jesuit’s butts. 😃

We’ll be humble and detached and will refrain from world domination. The OD and the SJ can divide it up among themselves, as long as they make big donations to Franciscan ministries. 😃
At this point, St. Francis, St.Ignatius and St. Jose Maria Escriva are all looking down on me :tsktsk:

I’m outta here . . . :cool:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
You people realize that 1.7 million Franciscan men and women (during our low vocation days) can kick the Opus Dei’s and Jesuit’s butts. 😃

We’ll be humble and detached and will refrain from world domination. The OD and the SJ can divide it up among themselves, as long as they make big donations to Franciscan ministries. 😃
At this point, St. Francis, St.Ignatius and St. Jose Maria Escriva are all looking down on me :tsktsk:

I’m outta here . . . :cool:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Okay…I suspect we better get back on topic.
 
It would seem Mr. Bugay has no response to your responses to his response. 😃 Over a day since his last post on this thread.
 
MarcoPolo said:
A few responses to this:

Whenever I see contra-Catholic apologists such as yourself cite Ott, you do so by applying your own Protestant rules onto Ott’s text. In other words, Ott, a Catholic, obviously would see no problem with doctrinal development. Neither would the authors of Scripture, for that matter, whose theology develops clearer through time, like how Satan was never identified in the earliest works (just this weird serpent/dragon) but all the way to Revelation, it’s specific; or how Paul’s treatment on predestination is further developed in Romans than in his earlier works; etc… But since the Reformed tradition rejects development of doctrine (with the exception of the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, hypostatic union, and maybe some other doctrines), then we are supposed to think “OH! D*mning evidence against Catholics!” When the reality is, these misuses of Ott are only “useful” to predisposed fellow Reformers and their ilk. Perhaps you could post the entirety of Ott’s summary of iconography for our review? And frankly, that’s all off-topic anyway, because as a Reformed Christian you should not care what Ott says one way or another about doctrine.

Secondly, you use the term “God.” You use the verbal symbol of language to depict God. In doing so are you making Him jealous? The Jews once once taught that annunciating God’s name was forbidden. Did your doctrine from the OT practice develop? You are arguing that visual symbolism to depict God is bad, but verbal depictions are good. But if you read the commandment on graven images in contex—the purpose of forbidding the graven image was is linked to “no other gods but me” to prevent the worshipping of idols. So making an image of Christ to facilitate worshipping HIM is not like cheating on your spouse. The marital “jealousy” you point out is valid, but inapplicable to true Catholic and Orthodox use of iconography. If the icon was considered “another god,” your argument would then have weight. As it stands, it fails to demonstrate that there is a mistress in the form of a statue involved.

And thirdly, Christ came incarnate as God’s image. In doing so, did he violate your rules for what makes God jealous or not jealous? According to what you wrote, since Jesus said “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” Jesus violated the commandment. The Father must be jealous of the Son. But you know that in the Catechism the defense of iconography includes the incarnation of Christ as a “new economy of images”?

p.s. John, can you cite the Synod of Elvira’s text for us? I have sources that say there were only 21 canons, and another Ohio St. professor who said this synod was not totally “aniconic” and that it was only against “idolotrous use of” icons.

Canon 36 (if it is not a later addition) says icons should be avoided to avoid the temptation of worship. Other post-21 canons say that women should stay out of cemetaries too. Does the Reformed Tradition hold on to that one?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Thanks for the compliments from some of you. Lots of good posts with good charity and data in here.

Just for the record, I decided to look in my own copy of Fundamentals and Ott on iconography. As we can all see, the purpose of practicing the avoidance of icons during the early period (not to be confused with calling icons an intrinsic evil––something the Church never did), was because of the prevalence of paganism and tendency for that culture to view icons as an ends to worship in themselves. Here is a fuller view of what Ott wrote on the matter (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 320-321):

*(He begins out with a paragraph talking about how the “prototype,” i.e. person is venerated (or worshipped in the case of God), not the image or statue.) The Old Testament prohibition of the making and veneration of images (Ex. 20, 4 et seq.), on which the opponents of the veneration of images rely was intended to prevent the Israelites from relapsing into the idolatry of their pagan mileu. The prohibition is valid for Christianity in so far as it prohibits the idolotrous veneration of images. Further, even the Old Testament knew exceptions from the prohibition of the making of images: Ex. 25,18 (two cherubims of gold on the ark). Numbers 21,8 (the brazen serpent).

Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36). The original purpose of the images was that of instruction. The veneration of images (by kissing, bowing down before them, burning of candles, incensing) chiefly developed in the Greek Church from the fifth to the seventh centuries. The Iconoclasts of the eighth and the ninth centuries saw in the veneration of images a relapse into paganism. Against them St. John Damascene (†749), the Patriarchs Germanus (†753) and Micephorus (†829) of Constantinople and the Abbot Theodor of Studium (†826) defended the Church practice. They stressed above all the relative character of the veneration and also pointed out the educational value of the images. Cf. D 1569.*So even according to Ott, the reason veneration of images saw prohibitions early on was because in that time and culture, the propensity to confuse valid image veneration with pagan idolatry was prominent. Hence, “after the victory over paganism,” the Church considered the confusion quelled and true veneration able to flourish. As Ott said, emphasis was placed on the “relative character of the veneration”—was it idolatrous veneration or did it facilitate worship of the true God? At no point does Ott indicate the Church ever equated the mere making of an icon idolatrous. The Church never declared the mere making of an icon as a defined matter of immorality.

Even at the Synod of Elvira, canon 36 reads: “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” You see how the purpose is because of concern that they will become “objects of worship”—NOT that such pictures are themselves evil to produce. That canon comes right before #35 which is the one I mentioned earlier reading: “Women are not to remain in a cemetery during the night. Some* engage in wickedness rather than prayer*.” Here again, it is not said that a woman merely being in a cemetery at night is a defined matter of evil. But in that culture, it was considered a temptation to occultish practice. In neither case was the Church declaring images or standing in a cemetery intrinsically immoral. Rather the Church was assigning certain disciplinary practices in that time and place.

It is similar to how there used to be a prohibition on eating meat on any Friday during the year for American Catholics. With that disciplinary practice, the Church was not saying that it was an intrinsic evil to eat meat on a Friday! But the Church considered it prudent for the faithful to practice that discipline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top