Does the RCC teach that non-Catholic Christians are anathema?

[Pat_De]

No, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Head of the Church, which He established and to which He gave authority. The fact that individual members of the Body are idiots or hypocrits or henious sinners does not obviate the facts.

And the fact that you, or some person in Timbuctu, or even a priest you know, doesn’t understand the difference between veneration and worship doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. For millenia everyone believed the world was flat - that didn’t make it flat. Things that are objective true are true even if NO ONE knows it.

You own Church calls veneration what it is, worship. Look it up for yourself. It is a matter of “divine degree” from the human perspective, but I seriously doubt it passes the true divine standard in my opinion from knowing God. But keep praying to saints, angels, and Mary and bowing before things made of human hands in a spiritual sense and you will one day find out the truth of what God thinks about it; hope for your sake it isn’t what I believe He will think. I hope I am wrong for many people’s sake.

 

[zielwolf]

The Mass is the re-presentation of the One Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, who died once for all (1 Peter 3:18, CCC 1367). I don’t know where you got “mystical slaying of Christ” and “formally distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross” but it’s not doctrine.

I got it from the Catholic Encyclopedia actually. And sorry but the mystical slaying of Christ and the formal distinction between the Mass and Calvary are dogma. If there was no slaying the sacrifice would not be real. And it makes no sense to say the Sacrifice on Calvary is formally identical to the Sacrifice of the Mass. They don’t resemble each other one bit. To state the most obvious difference for a start: Christ is offered as bread and wine, not hung on a cross.

And the two Sacrifices have different purposes: Calvary was a once-for-all sacrifice to attain the possibility of redemption of all humanity and in fact all of creation. We offer Mass for the living and the dead for the application of the grace Christ gained at calvary, in atonement for the temporal punishment of our sins and to relieve the agony of the souls suffering the fires of purgatory.

Since when is that not Catholic doctrine?

You can check here: newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

And yea, when most Protestants I talk to hear this aspect of Catholic doctrine explained in detail they are quite disturbed by it and generally deny that such a teaching could be true. Which then means they are anathema.
I don’t like it much, in fact I hate it; but we have to follow the Church’s teachings if we ourselves don’t want to end up fried anathema as well.

 

[NHInsider]

I got it from the Catholic Encyclopedia actually. And sorry but the mystical slaying of Christ and the formal distinction between the Mass and Calvary are dogma. If there was no slaying the sacrifice would not be real. And it makes no sense to say the Sacrifice on Calvary is formally identical to the Sacrifice of the Mass. They don’t resemble each other one bit. To state the most obvious difference for a start: Christ is offered as bread and wine, not hung on a cross.

Are you saying the Catechism is wrong?

And the two Sacrifices have different purposes: Calvary was a once-for-all sacrifice to attain the possibility of redemption of all humanity and in fact all of creation. We offer Mass for the living and the dead for the application of the grace Christ gained at calvary, in atonement for the temporal punishment of our sins and to relieve the agony of the souls suffering the fires of purgatory.

Since when is that not Catholic doctrine?

You can check here: newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

From that very page:

It is the express teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very nature a “representation” (representatio), a “commemoration” (memoria) and an “application” (applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed the Roman Catechism (II, c. iv, Q. 70) as a fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition (instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application of the merits of the Passion. Just as the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice — the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii): “Una enim eademque est hostia idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa offerendi ratione diversa”. (empahsis mine)

The “mystical slaying” conversation is there, much later in the article, in the part where the author outlines the various ways that theolgians have tried to explain the “how” of the unbloody sacrifice down through the centuries. “formally distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross” does not appear in the article, as far as I can see, and is patently contradicted by the “essential identity” statement, above.

And yea, when most Protestants I talk to hear this aspect of Catholic doctrine explained in detail they are quite disturbed by it and generally deny that such a teaching could be true. Which then means they are anathema.
I don’t like it much, in fact I hate it; but we have to follow the Church’s teachings if we ourselves don’t want to end up fried anathema as well.

It would behoove us to understand those doctrines before we try to explain them to others.

 

[JohnVIII]

A baptized Catholic who leaves the Church and joins a Protestant sect commits heresy and one who leaves and joins the Orthodox Church commits schism. One who rejects the Christian faith (for a non-Christian faith or in favor of atheism or agnosticism) commits apostacy.

I can’t help but wander if this is still true since Vatican II. I think it probably is not any more.

 

[zielwolf]

Are you saying the Catechism is wrong?

No I am not saying the catechism is wrong. I have talked about this with my parish priest and he says that these doctrines are correct.

Yes they are essentially one and the same sacrifice, but formally they are distinct. When Christ shed his blood in the cup on the eve of the crucifixion - before he had physically died and been resurrected, it was a real sacrifice that He made of His Body and Blood. It was not just a commemoration, re-presentation or dramatization of the Cross - it was in every way a real sacrifice sufficient in and of itself, for the application of the merits He would obtain for us, and for the atonement of sin.

That which He gave was given for all time…Christ’s immolation is eternal.

(Daily Missal 1962, p. lii) (cf. Revelation 5:6)

I think perhaps you are mixing up the essential transcendent identity and unity of the two sacrifices, with the formal and temporal distinctness.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the temporal actualization and renewal of the Sacrifice at Calvary, and in the Mass, Christ is referred to as the “Victim” (cf. hostia - host). If he were not “slain” - albeit in a mystical and bloodless manner - at Mass why do we call Him the Victim? And how would the Mass fulfil the requirements of a real, literal sacrifice?

When the priest chants before the consecration over the host and the chalice: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (1962 Missal, p. 891) - he is not referring to the sacrifice Christ offered at Calvary. He is referring to what is happening there and then on the altar.

I don’t know why this is such a problem for you, in fact you are the first Catholic I have ever met who has denied these things. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I am surprised you would consider the Mass in the way you do. By the way, I attend Mass at a parish which follows the Latin rite, so the theological focus - which is very much focussed on the Sacrificial character of the Mass - of my parish may be somewhat different to yours.

"If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:

a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).

In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God."

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

And just to stay on topic - anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant or atheist or whatever, who denies that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a real, literal sacrifice is declared anathema. And to my knowledge, those anathemae were never lifted by Vactican II nor after that.

 

[Pat_De]

I got it from the Catholic Encyclopedia actually. And sorry but the mystical slaying of Christ and the formal distinction between the Mass and Calvary are dogma. If there was no slaying the sacrifice would not be real. And it makes no sense to say the Sacrifice on Calvary is formally identical to the Sacrifice of the Mass. They don’t resemble each other one bit. To state the most obvious difference for a start: Christ is offered as bread and wine, not hung on a cross.

And the two Sacrifices have different purposes: Calvary was a once-for-all sacrifice to attain the possibility of redemption of all humanity and in fact all of creation. We offer Mass for the living and the dead for the application of the grace Christ gained at calvary, in atonement for the temporal punishment of our sins and to relieve the agony of the souls suffering the fires of purgatory.

Since when is that not Catholic doctrine?

You can check here: newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

And yea, when most Protestants I talk to hear this aspect of Catholic doctrine explained in detail they are quite disturbed by it and generally deny that such a teaching could be true. Which then means they are anathema.
I don’t like it much, in fact I hate it; but we have to follow the Church’s teachings if we ourselves don’t want to end up fried anathema as well.

Did you know the Catholic Church added the “cup” later on as time moved on the “Church” changed. None of the apostles nor the early church celebrated the Lord’s supper in a transubstantial way. They will wrongly interpret what some of the efc’s as well as Scripture, before 150 AD to make it seem that way, but the truth was always understood as Paul taught, which is how God taught/wrote it. That is why Christians and some Protestants and others are disturbed. God has His own anathema for such things. That is my understanding and knowledge of Scripture, which obviously is not the same as your church’s understanding.

 

[NHInsider]

Did you know the Catholic Church added the “cup” later on as time moved on the “Church” changed. None of the apostles nor the early church celebrated the Lord’s supper in a transubstantial way.

Directly contradictory to all the extant evidence.

They will wrongly interpret what some of the efc’s as well as Scripture, before 150 AD to make it seem that way, but the truth was always understood as Paul taught, which is how God taught/wrote it. <<

It was Paul who wrote “Is not the cup we share communion in the Blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). And it was Jesus who said, repeatedly and emphatically, "“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” John 6:53-56

That is why Christians and some Protestants and others are disturbed. God has His own anathema for such things.

Many of Jesus’ followers were quite disturbed by His words. Disturbed enough to abandon Him. He didn’t chase after them and say “wait, it’s symbolic.” He looked at the Apostles and said “well, what about you guys?”

That is my understanding and knowledge of Scripture, which obviously is not the same as your church.

Having grown up believing as you do know, I come more and more to appreciate the wisdom of “leaning not on my own understanding.”

 

[1ke]

I can’t help but wander if this is still true since Vatican II. I think it probably is not any more.

Uh, yes of course it is still true. What a bizarre statement. What has Vatican II to do with the matter?

Catechism:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon Law:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;

 

[Philthy]

Did you know the Catholic Church added the “cup” later on as time moved on the “Church” changed. None of the apostles nor the early church celebrated the Lord’s supper in a transubstantial way.

They didnt? Do you have anything to offer other than an unqualified opinion???
With respect to your claim regarding the Apostles, what evidence do you offer to validate your claim that they didnt celebrate the Lord’s Supper “in a transubstantial way”? The only evidence we have comes from Paul in his letter to the 1st Corinthians and it absolutely speaks of the Lords Supper in terms of a “participation in the body and blood of the Lord” and goes further to say that in regards to those who participate in it, “whoever does not recognize the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”.
Secondly, the first generation of Christians succeeding the Apostles clearly spoke of the literal, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle - here’s his take on it from Ch7 of his letter to the Smyrneans:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

They will wrongly interpret what some of the efc’s as well as Scripture, before 150 AD to make it seem that way, but the truth was always understood as Paul taught, which is how God taught/wrote it.

Another unsubstantiated claim apparently resting on nothing but an over assessment of your own opinion. I think anyone with an unbiased perspective can judge for themselves whether this early Church Father, Martyr and Saint, spoke of the Eucharist as Catholics do today, or not.

That is why Christians and some Protestants and others are disturbed. God has His own anathema for such things.

There were those who resisted the authority of the Apostles as well…they were “disturbed”.

That is my understanding and knowledge of Scripture, which obviously is not the same as your church’s understanding.

Unfortunately, your opinion and knowledge - like my own - is extraordinarily limited. One thing that is certain, however: your opinion directly contradicts the testimony of the ECF presented here and the rest of them on this topic.

Blessings!

 

[NHInsider]

No I am not saying the catechism is wrong. I have talked about this with my parish priest and he says that these doctrines are correct.

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

zielwolf:

Yes they are essentially one and the same sacrifice, but formally they are distinct. When Christ shed his blood in the cup on the eve of the crucifixion - before he had physically died and been resurrected, it was a real sacrifice that He made of His Body and Blood. It was not just a commemoration, re-presentation or dramatization of the Cross - it was in every way a real sacrifice sufficient in and of itself, for the application of the merits He would obtain for us, and for the atonement of sin.

Strictly speaking, it was a pre-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Again, to have reference to the Catholic Encylopedia article you cited:

Only the Last Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfilment, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the “giving of the body” and the “Shedding of the Blood” were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at the Last Supper would be inconceivable.

zielwolf:

I think perhaps you are mixing up the essential transcendent identity and unity of the two sacrifices, with the formal and temporal distinctness.

I am not aware of any official statement of this “formal distinctness,” which seems to me to contradict Trent.

zielwolf:

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the temporal actualization and renewal of the Sacrifice at Calvary, and in the Mass, Christ is referred to as the “Victim” (cf. hostia - host). If he were not “slain” - albeit in a mystical and bloodless manner - at Mass why do we call Him the Victim? And how would the Mass fulfil the requirements of a real, literal sacrifice?

Because He is the Lamb that was slain from before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) and the Mass allows us to be present at and participate in that Once for All Sacrifice.

zielwolf:

I don’t know why this is such a problem for you, in fact you are the first Catholic I have ever met who has denied these things. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I am surprised you would consider the Mass in the way you do.

It is a problem for me because, first of all, it appears as stated to contradict what I know to be the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and second of all, because I know that one of the most-repeated and most passionately-felt accusations our non-Catholic brethren hold against us is “they think the Cross isn’t sufficient, they think they need to sacrifice Jesus over and over again.” For both reasons I think it is important to be very careful with the language we use when we talk about the true sacrifice of the Mass.

By the way, I attend Mass at a parish which follows the Latin rite, so the theological focus - which is very much focussed on the Sacrificial character of the Mass - of my parish may be somewhat different to yours.

And I do believe it is necessary to refocus people on the sacrificial nature of the Mass - we have for so long focused on the communal banquet that some have lost sight of the sacrifice, and of course we know that many fail to recognize the Body and Blood, putting themselves at serious risk (1 Cor. 11:29). Both the sacrifice and the banquet are real (the Passover sacrifice REQUIRED the feast - only by partaking of the Paschal lamb did the faithful become part of the Exodus community - so too, we must partake of our Paschal sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

 

[NHInsider]

And just to stay on topic - anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant or atheist or whatever, who denies that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a real, literal sacrifice is declared anathema. And to my knowledge, those anathemae were never lifted by Vactican II nor after that.

If by anathema you mean “outside our community/unable to partake of Communion,” then you are correct. If you mean “going to burn in hell for all eternity,” then you are contradicting the plain teaching of the Church. But that (possibility of salvation of non-Catholics) is a subject that has already been beaten to death in numerous other threads.

 

[lookaround]

I would like to apologize for appearing condescending, and appreciate your acknowledgment that tone is difficult to convey online.

I will confess that based on your original post and then your response in post #10, I thought you were going to be one of those posters who begin with what sounds like an honest inquiry, collect a bunch of what are intended to be honest answers, and then launch an attack on the Catholic Church for not teaching what the posters’ interpretations of Scripture are.

I was suspicious of your motives/intent, and that was uncharitable of me. I am sorry.

Its ok
I have heard of Catholics being attacked on this site and others so I understand if you were suspicious.

 

[Roy5]

During my lifetime I’ve seen considerable change in the Catholic attitude toward Protestants and vice versa.

As a child, the Protestant wing of my family would refer to the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX (1864) in which he used the word anathema over and over to sharply condemn Protestantism, democracy as we know it, separation of church and state, etc. Check it out on the internet.

That seemed to be the attitude until John XXIII. Vatican II, which he called (1962-65), watered down the denunciations of Protestants amd Protestantism. They became "separated brothers and sisters". Almost overnight Catholics could join with Protestants in ecumenical services, priests joined what had been previously all-Protestant clergy associations, and various other restrictions against Protestants were lifted. Protestant pastors were welcome by many priests to participate in weddings service at Catholic churches and many priests (not all) assisted at weddings in Protestant churches. 

 If one pays attention to CAF postings, however, many of them seem to echo the deep bitterness toward Protestantism that was widespread pre-Vatican II. Most Catholics, like Protestants, certainly the lay people, seem to feel that as fellow Christians we 'agree to disagree' and leave it at that. Sadly, there are still those 'on both sides' who hold fast to religious prejudices that, in my view, contradict the spirit of Christ.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and all God's children.

 

[jlhargus]

Did you know the Catholic Church added the “cup” later on as time moved on the “Church” changed. None of the apostles nor the early church celebrated the Lord’s supper in a transubstantial way. They will wrongly interpret what some of the efc’s as well as Scripture, before 150 AD to make it seem that way, but the truth was always understood as Paul taught, which is how God taught/wrote it. That is why Christians and some Protestants and others are disturbed. God has His own anathema for such things. That is my understanding and knowledge of Scripture, which obviously is not the same as your church’s understanding.

JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a made up statement without evidence, which is evidence the statement is false. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

 

[DaveBus]

I echo Roy’s post. There has always, in the Jewish faith and now in the Christian faith, been a discrepancy between following the spirit or the letter of the law. Just as some of the heresies that Paul dealt with in the early church continue to exist today, usually under a different handle, so that atitude of the Pharisee exists today. It’s not a sect but a human condition, a shortful that taints us all. We should be talking about what we have in common in our love of Jesus, not focusing so much on what seperates us. Why aren’t we asking ourselves or giving testimony to how we have, today, shown our love for Christ by loving our neighbor or making sacrifices so we can serve the poor and needy. There is a lot of energy being expended here that could be used to further the kingdom in a more real way. One of Jesus’ last commands was toward unity. When the world sees Christians (catholic,protestand and orthodox) uniting in the love of Christ we will again turn this world upside down in love. No theology here just the greatest commandment “Love you neighbor”. Dave P.S. I am not deep into this but I would suggest googling Chiara Lubick or The Focalare Movement for a little insight.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

 If one pays attention to CAF postings, however, many of them seem to echo the deep bitterness toward Protestantism that was widespread pre-Vatican II. Most Catholics, like Protestants, certainly the lay people, seem to feel that as fellow Christians we 'agree to disagree' and leave it at that. Sadly, there are still those 'on both sides' who hold fast to religious prejudices that, in my view, contradict the spirit of Christ..

Ya–there are certainly people on the Protestant side who hold fast to the bitterness towards Catholism…either that or believe untruths about it. Believe me,I know…I’ve lost many a “friend” after I converted back.

 

[zielwolf]

Did you know the Catholic Church added the “cup” later on as time moved on the “Church” changed.

Don’t you mean the Catholic Church withheld the Cup from lay people, and many still do even today, rather than adding it? After all Christ consecrated bread and wine, not just bread.

I understand the logic behind withholding the Cup from the people - that is, in case any of the precious Blood be spilt - but I still think that was not how Jesus intended us to share communion. He shared bread and wine with his disciples, not just bread.

 

[momtoo]

You say “we do not worship statues” etc; that may be true for you , but not for the vast majority of Catholics. Look up worship in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and common sense and then see how veneration is synonymous with worship, which violates the law of God. You will see that those young people who don’t know what the church teaches; you will find the same about yourself in regards to worship as an example among others. As Ripley would have said “Believe it or not”

Religion saved how many people? Another example of what I am speaking of. It is Christ and Christ alone that has ever saved a single human being and Jesus Christ is not a religion.

Just a few pointers, nothing personal I promise.

Veneration is simply imagining whomever you are venerating is before you, Pat De. Relics and such are involved because of there link. Veneration goes way back to the beginning. Perhaps you’ve seen this tradition in the Jewish religion as well? All those Jew’s with their little prayer books bowing at a wall? I’ve never known anyone in the Roman Catholic Church to worship in the way you suggest. We don’t worship things. We worship God. As for religion, it’s a set of beliefs and rules Pat De. Christ dyeing doesn’t mean we don’t follow His rules. As for the Virgin and the saints, heck yeah I’ll ask them to help me. They are in Heaven and will happily pray for me (and you, if you ask).

 

[Pat_De]

Don’t you mean the Catholic Church withheld the Cup from lay people, and many still do even today, rather than adding it? After all Christ consecrated bread and wine, not just bread.

I understand the logic behind withholding the Cup from the people - that is, in case any of the precious Blood be spilt - but I still think that was not how Jesus intended us to share communion. He shared bread and wine with his disciples, not just bread.

No, it was added later; I meant exactly what I said and history confirms the same. Not a big deal; just pointing out another way the church has changed over time. He did mean for us to break bread as the church in the book of Acts tells us and a remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection for the Christian man or woman.

 

[Pat_De]

Veneration is simply imagining whomever you are venerating is before you, Pat De. Relics and such are involved because of there link. Veneration goes way back to the beginning. Perhaps you’ve seen this tradition in the Jewish religion as well? All those Jew’s with their little prayer books bowing at a wall? I’ve never known anyone in the Roman Catholic Church to worship in the way you suggest. We don’t worship things. We worship God. As for religion, it’s a set of beliefs and rules Pat De. Christ dyeing doesn’t mean we don’t follow His rules. As for the Virgin and the saints, heck yeah I’ll ask them to help me. They are in Heaven and will happily pray for me (and you, if you ask).

You will not know what your church teaches until you look it up and all you have to do is watch TV to see the Pope himself bowing down to a statute or a relic. So when you say you have never seen anything like that; I believe you are either being dishonest or fooling yourself, but look up for yourself. For Mary, they invented a word “hyperdulia” and it is termed as a form of worship, which is a violation of God’s command. but to each their own to pick their own poison.

Jesus was asked by His disciple how to pray and what was his answer and did He back up His answer by example and so why doesn’t the Church or yourself?