V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
The Eurasian said:
nice point there. Would somebody put a image of burning bush inside the church? i dont think so.
Are Catholics idolators? Two prominent Protestant theologians think so!
- Status
nice point there. Would somebody put a image of burning bush inside the church? i dont think so.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
viktor aleksndr:
I don’t follow the point.
Peace
Can you clarify what you two are discussing?
I don’t follow the point.
Peace
J
jimmy
Guest
The Eurasian said:
I wouldn’t say Moses saw God, he was a burning bush. However, I would say that Isaiah saw God The Father in chapter 6 when he is taken up to heaven.
D
deb1
Guest
I believe that they are talking about the image of God. One poster seems to be saying that we shouldn’t have any representations of God. I didn’t go back far enough to be certain. Maybe someone could explain what the number of the original post on this particular issue is.
V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
O
On_my_way
Guest
If these two prominent Protestant theologians think that Catholic are idolators. Maybe someone can answer this for me. Why do these very same Protestants at Christmas time use nativity scenes to depict the same Holy People: Jesus, the angels and the Saints? Isn’t that a form of idolatry?
As for God prohibiting the making of images for the purpose of worshipping them as written in Ex 20:4-5. Does God not prohibit imagemaking altogether. Did he not command moses to make statues of angels, Ex 25:18-19. Didn’t God also tell Moses to make a statue of a Bronze serpent, that is on the robe of every doctor today, for healing of the Isrealites, Num 21:8?
What really gets me is why do these Protestants feel that they need to challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is based on 2 things, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Also the Catholic Church as been around since the time of Jesus. There was no Protestant Church founded before 1517 AD. Look at the time frame and yet they challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church. I just don’t get it.
As for God prohibiting the making of images for the purpose of worshipping them as written in Ex 20:4-5. Does God not prohibit imagemaking altogether. Did he not command moses to make statues of angels, Ex 25:18-19. Didn’t God also tell Moses to make a statue of a Bronze serpent, that is on the robe of every doctor today, for healing of the Isrealites, Num 21:8?
What really gets me is why do these Protestants feel that they need to challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is based on 2 things, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Also the Catholic Church as been around since the time of Jesus. There was no Protestant Church founded before 1517 AD. Look at the time frame and yet they challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church. I just don’t get it.
R
Ric
Guest
I never even hinted that they were infallible, heck, no man is infallible! 
dennisknapp:
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
We Catholics DO NOT LOOK AT THE CORPUS OR SCULPTURE OF CHIRIST ON A CRUCIFIX AS A "GRAVEN IMAGE."The reason is because TO CATHOLICS, THE BRONZE SERPENT ON A POLE WHICH GOD COMMANDED MOSES TO MAKE IS NOT A GRAVEN IMAGE TO CATHOLICS.
But I think, to Catholics, PORNOGRAPHIC PICTURES ARE GRAVEN IMAGES. Men and Women in skimpy clothing for the purpose of causing the eyes etc to sin, those too are GRAVEN IMAGES. Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 foretold about these fashions THAT WILL BE OFFENSIVE TO THE LORD.
Decent FAMILY PICTURES, your picture in your DRIVER’S LICENCE, LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET, NUMERAL DIGITS — THESE ARE NOT GRAVEN IMAGES TO CATHOLICS.
There are over 27,000 NON-CATHOLIC Christian Religions, I don’t know how many of these are Protestant Religions. But they must be so many!!! BUT WE CAN SAY, I THINK, THAT ALL THOSE PROTESTANTS WHO THINK THAT THE CORPUS ON THE CRUCIFIX IS A GRAVEN IMAGE ---- BY LOGIC WILL ALSO END UP CONCLUDING THAT THE PROTESTANT BREAD AND WINE ARE GRAVEN IMAGES BECAUSE THEY ARE THE KIND OF PROTESTANTS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CATHOLIC CONSECRATED BREAD IS THE BODY BLOOD SOUL DIVINITY OF CHRIST. IN SHORT, TO THEM THAT CATHOLIC CONSECRATED BREAD IS NOT CHRIST BUT ONLY A BREAD SCULPTURE WHICH IS USED AS A SYMBOL FOR CHRIST. Since any sculpture of Christ to them is a graven image, it follows that to them a bread sculpture of Christ is also a graven image. THAT"S WHY THESE TWO PROMINENT PROTESTANT THEOLOGIANS ARE SAYING THAT CATHOLICS ARE IDOLATORS BECAUSE CATHOLICS ARE ADORING AND WORSHIPING THE CATHOLIC PRIEST CONSECRATED BREAD.
But Catholic disagree with these two Protestant theologians because Catholics say that THIS CATHOLIC PRIEST CONSECRATED BREAD IS NOT A SYMBOL, NOT AN IMAGE, NOT A REPRESENTATION, BUT IS CHRIST HIMSELF, BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, DIVINITY.
What Catholics are saying is this: "If were adoring a piece of bread, then we will be idolators. BUT YOU ARE WRONG PROTESTANT THEOLOGIANS!!! THAT’S NOT BREAD. Once consecrated by a Catholic priest, THAT’S JESUS HIMSELF!!! Adoring Jesus is NOT IDOLATRY. If you do not believe, look at the EUCHARISTIC MIRACLE AT LANCIANO. Go to the link which says. “Microscopic Photographs of the Scientific Recognition.” See the blood vessels in the Consecrated Bread that turned into HUMAN HEART MUSCLE!!!
negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/welcome.html
On the contrary, you Protestant Theologians, you who believe that the bread cannot become Jesus but can only be a symbol for Jesus, YOU ARE EATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS ONLY A SYMBOL OF GOD. AS SUCH, IS THAT BREAD USED AS A SYMBOL FOR GOD A GRAVEN IMAGE IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW??? If your answer is YES, then in your point of view, YOU ARE EATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE!!!
But I think, to Catholics, PORNOGRAPHIC PICTURES ARE GRAVEN IMAGES. Men and Women in skimpy clothing for the purpose of causing the eyes etc to sin, those too are GRAVEN IMAGES. Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 foretold about these fashions THAT WILL BE OFFENSIVE TO THE LORD.
Decent FAMILY PICTURES, your picture in your DRIVER’S LICENCE, LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET, NUMERAL DIGITS — THESE ARE NOT GRAVEN IMAGES TO CATHOLICS.
There are over 27,000 NON-CATHOLIC Christian Religions, I don’t know how many of these are Protestant Religions. But they must be so many!!! BUT WE CAN SAY, I THINK, THAT ALL THOSE PROTESTANTS WHO THINK THAT THE CORPUS ON THE CRUCIFIX IS A GRAVEN IMAGE ---- BY LOGIC WILL ALSO END UP CONCLUDING THAT THE PROTESTANT BREAD AND WINE ARE GRAVEN IMAGES BECAUSE THEY ARE THE KIND OF PROTESTANTS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CATHOLIC CONSECRATED BREAD IS THE BODY BLOOD SOUL DIVINITY OF CHRIST. IN SHORT, TO THEM THAT CATHOLIC CONSECRATED BREAD IS NOT CHRIST BUT ONLY A BREAD SCULPTURE WHICH IS USED AS A SYMBOL FOR CHRIST. Since any sculpture of Christ to them is a graven image, it follows that to them a bread sculpture of Christ is also a graven image. THAT"S WHY THESE TWO PROMINENT PROTESTANT THEOLOGIANS ARE SAYING THAT CATHOLICS ARE IDOLATORS BECAUSE CATHOLICS ARE ADORING AND WORSHIPING THE CATHOLIC PRIEST CONSECRATED BREAD.
But Catholic disagree with these two Protestant theologians because Catholics say that THIS CATHOLIC PRIEST CONSECRATED BREAD IS NOT A SYMBOL, NOT AN IMAGE, NOT A REPRESENTATION, BUT IS CHRIST HIMSELF, BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, DIVINITY.
What Catholics are saying is this: "If were adoring a piece of bread, then we will be idolators. BUT YOU ARE WRONG PROTESTANT THEOLOGIANS!!! THAT’S NOT BREAD. Once consecrated by a Catholic priest, THAT’S JESUS HIMSELF!!! Adoring Jesus is NOT IDOLATRY. If you do not believe, look at the EUCHARISTIC MIRACLE AT LANCIANO. Go to the link which says. “Microscopic Photographs of the Scientific Recognition.” See the blood vessels in the Consecrated Bread that turned into HUMAN HEART MUSCLE!!!
negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/welcome.html
On the contrary, you Protestant Theologians, you who believe that the bread cannot become Jesus but can only be a symbol for Jesus, YOU ARE EATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS ONLY A SYMBOL OF GOD. AS SUCH, IS THAT BREAD USED AS A SYMBOL FOR GOD A GRAVEN IMAGE IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW??? If your answer is YES, then in your point of view, YOU ARE EATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE!!!
M
mattman
Guest
Hey Dennis,
I haven’t read this book that you are quoting, so I will refrain from commenting on it. But I would like to say a couple of quick things in response to some things said on this post.
Eurasian said,
"In Protestant Theology, the bread and wine in their church services are never turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The bread and wine are simply turned into symbols for the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Being symbols for God, these are graven images in Protestant Theology."
This is false. Protestants do not consider the bread and wine as graven images. There are some groups of Protestant fundamentalists who think it wrong to have any symbols (for fear of worship of those symbols), but even these groups take communion. They do not consider it the making of a graven image. Nor do they consider it the worship of a graven image. Most Protestants do not worship the bread or wine.
wcknight said,
“Quite frankly, I don’t give a rat’s behind what any Protestant theologians think !!!”
I find this unfortunate. If the Eucharist is truly central to the teachings of the true church, I would think that you would want to convert as many people as possible so that they too could be in line with the teachings of the Catholic church.
I think DeFide said it best,
"There are Protestants (probably most) who are sensible enough to realize that if Catholics really believe that the Eucharist is our God and Savior Jesus Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity (and we do), then we are obviously not committing the sin of idolatry by worshipping it (Him).
As an analogy, if Protestants saw Jesus come down from heaven and they fell prostrate in worship of Him, they would not be committing the sin of idolatry regardless of whether others thought the event was authentic or not."
Blessings,
Matt
I haven’t read this book that you are quoting, so I will refrain from commenting on it. But I would like to say a couple of quick things in response to some things said on this post.
Eurasian said,
"In Protestant Theology, the bread and wine in their church services are never turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The bread and wine are simply turned into symbols for the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Being symbols for God, these are graven images in Protestant Theology."
This is false. Protestants do not consider the bread and wine as graven images. There are some groups of Protestant fundamentalists who think it wrong to have any symbols (for fear of worship of those symbols), but even these groups take communion. They do not consider it the making of a graven image. Nor do they consider it the worship of a graven image. Most Protestants do not worship the bread or wine.
wcknight said,
“Quite frankly, I don’t give a rat’s behind what any Protestant theologians think !!!”
I find this unfortunate. If the Eucharist is truly central to the teachings of the true church, I would think that you would want to convert as many people as possible so that they too could be in line with the teachings of the Catholic church.
I think DeFide said it best,
"There are Protestants (probably most) who are sensible enough to realize that if Catholics really believe that the Eucharist is our God and Savior Jesus Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity (and we do), then we are obviously not committing the sin of idolatry by worshipping it (Him).
As an analogy, if Protestants saw Jesus come down from heaven and they fell prostrate in worship of Him, they would not be committing the sin of idolatry regardless of whether others thought the event was authentic or not."
Blessings,
Matt
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Welcome Matt,
My biggest concern is with the following quote, for I think it makes the incarnation a violation of Exod. 20.
"It is to worship God under a physical image a form of worship that is clearly forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:4)"
Peace
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Exodus 20:4 is clearly a Mosaic Law. Mosaic Law was a temporary law for Israel until the messiah came and fullfilled its purpose. Also, still the law had some exceptions, remember the Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites adored it as if it were God itself and it even had Seraphim angels made with gold at the top. Also, at the time God had not yet revealed himself to man. He remained hidden, no one knew how he looked like. He was outside the visible realm.
Later in the New Testament, God did enter the visible realm in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was visible. Also, even in some cases in scripture after the resurection the Apostles could not recognize Jesus until he told them that he was. He instituted the Eucharist and scripture shows how the Christians always “broke bread” (in other words “mass”). Jesus stated “destroy the temple and I will rebuild it in three days.” He did just that when he resurected on Sunday and appeared to the apostles. The apostles were the Temple. They were chosen to administer the Eucharist and appoint successors. That was the Catholic Church, God’s new temple of jews and gentiles offering sacrifice to God. The sacrifice is Jesus Christ present in the most holy eucharist. The protestants lack the temple, their worship is the Synogogue style which is always longing for the temple. Their worship is not complete.
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
dennisknapp
That physical Body of the Incarnation, that’s not an image but God Himself.
In contrast, a statue of Jesus is not Jesus himself but only a 3 dimensional image, However to Catholics it is a 3 dimensional sculpture like the bronze serpent on the pole which God ordered Moses to do. They are however not for the purpose of leading us to sins, As such they are not graven images from the point of view of Catholics, UNLESS YOU START ADORING THE STATUE OR BRONZE SERPENT.
======================
Protestants on the other hand, know full well that that plaster of paris or cement sculpture of Christ is NOT CHRIST BUT ONLY A 3 DIMENSIONAL IMAGE.
(1) Correct me if I am wrong not on the above paragraph but on this paragraph that you are reading now. Since the plaster of paris 3 dimensional sculpture of Christ is not God himself but only a 3 dimensional image of Christ, in the Protestant understanding, THAT SCULPTURE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE AND IS THE REASON WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SCULPTURE OF THE CORPUS ON THEIR PROTESTANT CROSSES. Their saying that their emphasis is on the Risen Christ is only an ALIBI.
(2) Again correct me in this paragraph if I am wrong. If a 3 dimensional plaster of paris CORPUS on a cross is a graven image to Protestants, WHY WILL AN UNCONSECRATED BREAD SCULPTURE OF CHRIST NOT BE A GRAVEN IMAGE IN THE PROTESTANT VIEW? WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE EXCEPT THAT ONE IS PLASTER OF PARIS WHILE OTHER IS NON-CONSECRATED BREAD?
Remember, Protestants do not adore the plaster of paris corpus. But despite their not adoring the plaster of paris corpus, to Protestants that plaster of paris corpus is a graven image. That’s why no corpus on Protestant Crucifixes. All those leaves on their crosses, their sayings that they put emphasis on the risen Christ, -----THOSE ARE JUST EXCUSES, ALIBIES, COVERUPS FOR THEIR BELIEF THAT THE CORPUS IS A GRAVEN IMAGE.
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
mattman ----from Post # 49:
Like you, I do not believe that any Protestant has ever said that the Protestant bread and wine in their Church Services are graven images. Nor do I believe that any Protestant has ever said that they are eating a graven image in their Church Services.
Though they have never said that the bread in Protestant Church Services is a graven image, the fact is that for most or practicallly all of them, they say that the bread is NEVER TURNED INTO CHRIST BUT ONLY INTO A SYMBOL FOR CHRIST. So from this point it will be a true statement that for these Protestants, they believe that what they are eating is a bread symbol for Christ which is the same as eating a 3 dimensional bread image of Christ.
Maybe, they’ve never said that the bread is a graven image especially because they are eating the bread.
But if you look at WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CORPUS ON THEIR PROTESTANT CROSSES, YOU WILL SEE THAT THEIR EMPHASIS ON THE RISEN CHRIST IS ONLY AN ALIBI. THEIR REAL REASON IS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THAT CORPUS IS A GRAVEN IMAGE. To them, that corpus is a graven image — even if they don’t worship the plaster of paris corpus.
So just as with a plaster of paris corpus which to them is a graven image, so too with a round flat corpus made of bread…
I believe what you are objecting in my comment is ONLY THE PORTION WHERE I SAID, “Being symbols for God, these are graven images in Protestant Theology.”
Like you, I do not believe that any Protestant has ever said that the Protestant bread and wine in their Church Services are graven images. Nor do I believe that any Protestant has ever said that they are eating a graven image in their Church Services.
Though they have never said that the bread in Protestant Church Services is a graven image, the fact is that for most or practicallly all of them, they say that the bread is NEVER TURNED INTO CHRIST BUT ONLY INTO A SYMBOL FOR CHRIST. So from this point it will be a true statement that for these Protestants, they believe that what they are eating is a bread symbol for Christ which is the same as eating a 3 dimensional bread image of Christ.
Maybe, they’ve never said that the bread is a graven image especially because they are eating the bread.
But if you look at WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CORPUS ON THEIR PROTESTANT CROSSES, YOU WILL SEE THAT THEIR EMPHASIS ON THE RISEN CHRIST IS ONLY AN ALIBI. THEIR REAL REASON IS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THAT CORPUS IS A GRAVEN IMAGE. To them, that corpus is a graven image — even if they don’t worship the plaster of paris corpus.
So just as with a plaster of paris corpus which to them is a graven image, so too with a round flat corpus made of bread…
V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
the angels in the arc of the covenant, aren’t they images?
also read 1 Samuel 6. it is funny though
also read 1 Samuel 6. it is funny though
I
Ignatius
Guest
Nekić:
God Bless.
Kudos on your excellent exposition.
God Bless.
A
Angainor
Guest
When I hear a Catholic express how much they love and adore the Church I really worry they are making Catholicism their god.
J
jimmy
Guest
Considering the quote you give, it seems like they would be idolators as well. They worship Christ, or atleast claim to worship Him. All the physical senses we are given tell us that Christ was a finite creation of God.
Your physical senses don’t always tell you everything though.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Put into focus WHO the Church is (Bride of Christ/Mystical Body of Christ) and your problem should diminish.
Now how about those who dispise the Church?
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
My point was that protestants who reject the doctrine of the real presence must do so because if they were to acknowledge that Christ is really present in the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist, then they would have to acknowledge that they are part of a tradition that left the Church where Christ really exists. But you do have a point to the extent you suggest there are other reformed traditions that slip past this issue by claiming they also have the real sacramental presence of Christ - like Anglicanism. My original comment was addressed to those who deny the Real Presence in any faith tradition, be it Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.
Again, I was speaking in general about the “low church” protestant tradition that denies the Real Presence altogether. I suppose you have a point that there are some protestant “high church” traditions that recognize to some degree that Christ is present in their euchristic sacrament. But again, my point was that reformed christians will naturally attack the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence because if they are wrong, then their forefathers really did leave Christ - literally - when they left the Catholic Church, even if they left under the best of intentions.
Once again, let me clarify that I was speaking in generalities about the topic at hand - two fundamentalist “theologians” who conclude that the Catholic Church is guilty of practicing idolatry. My point was that these two persons attack the Real Presence because it is a direct threat to their own beliefs. In their theology the Real Presence cannot exist for many reasons. So, from their perspective, the doctrine has to be denied. If the Real Presence is accepted by “bible-believing” fundamentalist christians - they cease to be fundamentalists. I was not making a bold statement about Christ’s presence in other faith traditions. Sorry for your confusion, but you seem to be the only one who was confused.
You are the minority, in my experience. I also think you are fooling yourself to the extent you are including other protestants in your declaration that you “acknowledge the validity of Catholic sacraments.” Most protestants I know would not go so far.
-Peace
J
jimmy
Guest
Considering that Christ started the Church and gave it authority and it teaches the truth of Christ, we should all love it.
- Status