History of the Roman Catholic Church

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Regarding your reference here, I have not seen any statements along the lines you refer to where the CC calls other denominations, “daughters of the church”. would you provide the source for this?

I have been searching the internet for the appropriate letter however have been unable to find it. I will need to go to the library to access the reference. As soon as I find it I will direct you to it. In the meantime, if anybodyelse can help locate the document it would be appreciated, I believe by both twb and myself. The document we are refering to is a letter written while the Pope was head of the “Council on Doctrines and Faith” during the Popeship of John Paul II.

 

[twb1621]

Part 1 of 2

Sabbath Seeker stated: Nice chop job. Guess it was bound to happen.

TWB1621 response: I am replying to you with sincere responses and hope you are not taking them as sarcasm. I am not sure why you made this statement.

Sabbath Seeker stated: And your implication is that these types of warning are not pertinent (sic) to Christians?

TWB1621 response: My point, not implication, is simply this. The Jews denied Jesus, which as you agreed before led to the acceptance of the gentiles and all throughout the world. Unless you believe God is prejudice against national origin rather than having initially accepted the Jews based on their belief in Him rather than because He just liked “Jews”, this should not be hard to comprehend. You seem to refer to the OT as though Jesus is not the Messiah and could not have made the New Covenant.

Sabbath Seeker stated: I refer to the scriptural reference “graven images” that are bowed down to and/or prayed to or used in worship relationship to God.

TWB1621 response: You’re looking for fault with the hopes of justifying your position against the CC. When a person’s photo is displayed at his funeral, what is actually the purpose? Be realistic. Images have been part of the human race since the human learned to scratch a cave wall and history with the support of archeology has provided evidence of images in the catacombs for that matter. These were people who knew Jesus. That’s not to mention the Jews who also had likenesses.

Sabbath Seeker stated: Much of what follows has been covered, but yet again to streer the topic away from the questions posed the tactic of using a different line of reasoning is used to avoid answering. It’s the usual attack that is done over and over again. But, so that I remain consistant I will answer your divergent line of questioning.

TWB1621 response: Not divergent but merely accepting the fact you have the reasonable sense God gave you and suggesting you take off the blinders to consider the possibilities. Your sarcasm is not necessary and it would make it easier for me to respond more directly to your concerns if I didn’t have to address your comments. If you want to understand the truth, at least hear the answers, or you are only attempting to criticize otherwise. Some of what was posted you responded to, but I reposted for a response to the common sense points you didn’t get to respond to previously. Not to badger you.

Sabbath Seeker stated: Really, you yourself may not “kneel” ( another word for bow down) but others do. The subject of whether or not images are worshipped has already been covered at least twice and probably more on this thread and I reiterate, I have not accussed anyone here of doing so.

TWB1621 responded: We are the Catholic Church and It hasn’t been “covered as long as you present the position that the CC worships idols because of the presence of images that you just referred to once again as being knelt or bowed before and prayed to.

Sabbath Seeker stated: And here is the divergent subject matter that is used to divert the questions posed. I’ll not get into this as it takes us off into a different realm and matters of opinion and it will do no good to add yet another line of reasoning to an already difficult matter. We keep doing this and then we end up discussing everything but that which we are trying to resolve. Let’s stick to one point for now we can come back to this at a later time if you wish.

TWB1621 responded: Well that’s fine but I have been responding to your posts since I entered this thread so who is diverging?

Sabbath Seeker stated: As I have already state ad infinitum, this is understood. Go on to something else and please quite repeating your same arguments or at least answer the questions poses.

TWB1621 responded: Give me the specific questions you want answered and I will be happy to respond.

Sabbath Seeker stated: Read it again, it says “graven image” and “bow down to” and “serve them”. It does not here call them “idols” even though we recognize the discription of an “idol” it does not call them this which makes the commandment all the more encompassing.

TWB1621 responded: Again, understand the reason and who we may bow or kneel too in prayer, not the objects or images. That’s just ridiculous to believe otherwise. Then to respond be with the same literal standing you should be aware that “graven” means chiseled so this would mean that all images not “chiseled” were not referred to, correct?

Sabbath Seeker stated: Did you actually read what I posted or is your memory that short lived, please go back and reread what I wrote concerning the images in of the brass serpent, the angels on the Tabernacle walls and the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.

TWB1621 responded: Again with the sarcasm…. I’m trying to behave here SK.

 

[AliciaCL]

If I may, questions appear and accusations laid concerning evedience in history about the “True Church”. What I have been trying to do is lay a ground work steeped in scripture as relates to the church. Before accurate historical proof can be presented a foundation upon the formation of the Church and its original structure needs to be built. This formational foundation needs to be built upon ALL the scritpture that pertains to the formation of the Church including anything relating to the Church, or body of Christ, before and after the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Much of this foundational formation is found in the OLD TESTAMENT as it is these scriptures from which Christ himself taught and, before the Apostles wrote their Epistles from which they taught. If the present Church does not conform or mirror the early Church can we actually say that it is the True Chruch? If none of the present churches conform nor mirror the early True Church what must be done to bring it into conformity?

Have errors been introduced into the modern church and if so what are these? The reason there are so many “denominations” is because of the disagreements concerning these “possible” errors. It’s no so much that there may or may not be errors, it’s more that many refuse to even investigate the possibility because much of what is today observed in religious ceremony is to entrenched that pride over all else rules rather than reason.

So my point in all this is to get back to the basics of BIBLICAL teaching and investigative research, laying aside religious bias, and conducting a honest study of what the Word has to say, starting with God’s relationship with the Nation of Isreal.

Seems to me like your starting point is erroneous. You are trying to say everything must be supported by scripture. That is backwards. The RCC pre-existed from the NT. Not everything Jesus taught is in scripture. The scriptures themselvessay so. The best example is Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days after the Resurrection. That’s in the NT. Also, the details of what Jesus explained to the apostles on the road to Emaus about how he fulfilled the OT, is not written down in scripture. All of the details of is teaching and revelation are not specifically written down in scripture. SS is simply invented. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the apostles went out with their orally taught religion and began teaching. Later they wrote the gospels. History went on. The Reformation came. 30K churches “developed.” 500 years passed. Those in the reformed churches have learned a truncated version of what the apostles taught orally and what the institution of the church has taught with the Holy Spirit’s guidance over the centuries. Your best bet may be to read RCC conversion stories from people who were protestants and came to the RCC. They explain why and how they decided they were in the wrong place. Tune in to ETWN television “The Journey Home” program. Extremely enlightening. There is also a web site which has it’s old programs which you can listen directly from the web sight. They have loads of personal stories from people, clergy from many protestant denominations and the Jewish, Mormon, and Buddhist faiths.

 

[twb1621]

Part 2 of 2

Sabbath Keeper stated: I see no problem with using these “items” to remember historical Church events nor those who participated in them. I agree that pictures and painting that tell the story of Christ and the salvation he brought would have been usefull to the teaching of the illiterate, however, I ask, has the CC taken this a step further than it needed too? And when did it do this if it did? And by who’s authority? Again, the questions arise that have yet to be answered.

TWB1621 Responded: The answer is no, the CC has not taken the placement of images beyond any use than what has been stated and in fact there are Catholic Churches that have no images other than perhaps the cross. In fact, at one point some of the Catholic Churches had started removing the images because of the criticism of people who believed as you seem to until the body of the Church said, “…forget this, who are they to accuse us and why should we remove them to appease non-Catholics who make false accusations. We know why we have them and they are beautiful works of artistry as well as a means to reflect on.” It is not a requirement that Churches must have images in them, but an election on the part of Pastors and congregation for the most part. The images are again nothing more than a means to reflect on, not worship.

Sabbath Keeper stated: Activities that indicate and are included in worship services, are they not?

TWB1621 Responded: Sorry, I have never seen incense used on a statue but have in blessing the Eucharist. We use lights to see in dimly lit places. Also, the word above is not “worship”, but refers to honor. Have you never honored any human being for accomplishments? I bet you have. See now you got me doing it.

Sabbath Keeper stated: It is always an honor to ones memory when we remember the things that they have done in their lives, to do so only shows our gratitude and up lifts us when we have to travail the same paths.
TWB1621 Responded: Exactly. This is the key to it. Nothing more.

Sabbath Keeper stated: I’ve already made my points on these scriptures and you are not stating anything I myself have not stated. The point when I made the statements was that God did not want the Jews to have anything to do with the Idolatry of the surrounding nations that he commanded they were to conquer and then I asked the three basic questions that I have be asking over and over and over and over that have been ignored over and over and over and over again and again and again and again. Would you please answer them?

TWB1621 Responded: I’m not going hunting for these mysterious questions with all the different comments in this thread so give me the three questions without all the added comments and I will respond happily.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

It is a very sincere and complete act of showing respect. For example:

It’s nice to have different translations isn’t it?

KJV same verse

1. And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: (understanding the “him” is Abrahamand he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;2. And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: (so who is the “him” in this case?and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,(so the them and the him could not have been in the tent door with Abraham. So the them must have been with the him who must have been the Lord that Abraham saw)** and bowed himself toward the ground**

Could it be that Abraham was bowing down to the LORD?

Oh yes…that could very well be the case. There are many verses regarding bowing down…in worship of God, before idols and false gods, and as a sign of respect. There are a good many verses in the Bible regarding bowing, so I was selecting a few of them regarding bowing as a sign of respect and honor, not as worship.

But yes, having not read that verse so carefully, it could very well be bowing to the Lord!

Your point is made and accepted in this case. But note that this is not a suplication to worship or to prayer but it is rather an acknowledgement of the kindness bestowed upon Abraham by the Hittites in honor of them recognizing him as a “mighty prince”.

Agreed! And notice the part in those verses regarding intercession.

Do you not recognize the prophecy within this text? That which was to be bestowed upon the whole of Isreal and the decendants of Isaac and Abraham through Jacob? Come now, are not the Children of God blessed and does not God reward those how honor his Children? What does Jesus say about this? When time comes to an end will not all the nations bow down to the “Holy One” of Israel?

Yes, many times there are two meanings associated with events in the Bible!

( I only deleted out some of the text for expedience and assure you that I have read it all. No deception as to what was presented was or is intended as you can see from my response.)

Sabbath Keeper, I have come to know you enough to know that you do not intend to perform any deceptions in our conversations. With all due respect to other SDAs on the forums, I have found that you are very reasonable and upfront in our conversations. I have a very high respect for you!

In fact I bow to you!!!

Granted and conceded, bowing down can be and has been used as a sign of respect. But that does not annul the commandment of not bowing down before graven images. Again, I must reiterate. Statues, pictures and other such things in and of themselves DO NOT constitute a violation of the commandment,

Agreed…with the caveat that the violation of the commandment comes in not only in bowing down to graven images, BUT, worshipping them, false gods, AS GOD!

it is ONLY when they are used in such a manner as to invoke religious activity that they become suspect and therefore must be avoided. Remember what Paul preached concerning appearances and cause offense concerning such things. It is because of these things that CC members are perceived to be Idolators. Is it better to be perceive as that which you proclaim not to be and continue or to discontinue and avoid turning potential brothers and sisters away from the Church because of their perceptions?

Am I correct to assume that you are equating religious activity with worship? Or do you make a distinction between the two? While the two go very closely hand in hand and can be the same, I personally also see a distinction between them. For example, my Rosary beads that I use when praying the Rosary. It is an object, some are more beautiful and ornate than others, but it is, in my opinion and usage, more of a tool or instrument, rather than an image or artwork that I use to meditate upon. Praying the Rosary is “worshipful”, yet it is not the Divine worship that I participate in during The Mass. Much like Wednesday evening prayer meetings as opposed to sabbath church services. I don’t know if that is a good example or not, but I hope you get my point.

More importantly, I would have to say that it is not because of those “things… that CC members are perceived to be idolators”, but because of the ignorance and misunderstanding of those who are perceiving incorrectly. It is not the duty of the CC to change righteous practices, but the duty and responsibility of those not understanding to obtain information and be educated about the true practices and that those practices are not what they perceive incorrectly.

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

TWB1621 Responded: I’m not going hunting for these mysterious questions with all the different comments in this thread so give me the three questions without all the added comments and I will respond happily.

1. When was statuary instituted into the Church
2. Where did it come from?
3. Who authorized it?

I could add a couple more but for now these will do.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

I have been searching the internet for the appropriate letter however have been unable to find it. I will need to go to the library to access the reference. As soon as I find it I will direct you to it. In the meantime, if anybodyelse can help locate the document it would be appreciated, I believe by both twb and myself. The document we are refering to is a letter written while the Pope was head of the “Council on Doctrines and Faith” during the Popeship of John Paul II.

I believe this is what you are referring to.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3135

God bless all!!!

 

[twb1621]

I believe this is what you are referring to.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3135

God bless all!!!

Sabbath Keeper refers to other denominations being referred to as “daughters of the church”. Although I am familier with the writings you provided the link for, (thank you by the way), but these writings refer to “sister Church” which refers to the Catholic Eastern Orthodox and not other denominations like protestant or others as SK was referring to. The Catholic Church never to my Knowledge ever referred to any other Christian denomination as related in faith. So We are looking for whatever document SK is referring to in order to provide a proper response.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Sabbath Keeper refers to other denominations being referred to as “daughters of the church”. Although I am familier with the writings you provided the link for, (thank you by the way), but these writings refer to “sister Church” which refers to the Catholic Eastern Orthodox and not other denominations like protestant or others as SK was referring to. The Catholic Church never to my Knowledge ever referred to any other Christian denomination as related in faith. So We are looking for whatever document SK is referring to in order to provide a proper response.

I believe this is what Sabbath Keeper is referring to (2nd time’s a charm…I hope)…and you are correct. The reference to “daughters” is in regard to the particular Catholic churches, and not to the protestant denominations; and is different from sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox. See paragraph 9 specifically in the document below. I’m now going to go back and read the entire letter.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

God bless all!!!

 

[twb1621]

1. When was statuary instituted into the Church
2. Where did it come from?
3. Who authorized it?

I could add a couple more but for now these will do.

As I referred to previously, images (not idolized) have been found even in the catacombs but I will refer you to the following excerpts for answers to your questions as it is too much information to copy here. If you have any other questions, please ask;

That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art.

the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas.
continued at
newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

 

[twb1621]

I have been searching the internet for the appropriate letter however have been unable to find it. I will need to go to the library to access the reference. As soon as I find it I will direct you to it. In the meantime, if anybodyelse can help locate the document it would be appreciated, I believe by both twb and myself. The document we are refering to is a letter written while the Pope was head of the “Council on Doctrines and Faith” during the Popeship of John Paul II.

I believe Patrick Murebil has located the document you may have been referring to and from that document I am providing the following excerpt discribing what is meant by and who are the Daughter chruches.
UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

1. The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord(31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places. Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). They are therefore constituted “after the model of the universal Church”(34), and each of them is “a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy”(35).
2. The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches. Sometimes, however, the idea of a “communion of particular Churches” is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches. This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion. As history shows, when a particular Church has sought to become self-sufficient, and has weakened its real communion with the universal Church and with its living and visible centre, its internal unity suffers too, and it finds itself in danger of losing its own freedom in the face of the various forces of slavery and exploitation(37).
3. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are “part of the one Church of Christ”(38), have a special relationship of “mutual interiority”(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active”(40). For this reason, “the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches”(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.

Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world: from the first the Church speaks all languages(43).

From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in it and from it. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(44), is inseparable from this other formula: The Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(45). Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery, and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.

Quoting Patrick;
I believe this is what Sabbath Keeper is referring to (2nd time’s a charm…I hope)…and you are correct. The reference to “daughters” is in regard to the particular Catholic churches, and not to the protestant denominations; and is different from sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox. See paragraph 9 specifically in the document below. I’m now going to go back and read the entire letter.
documented at
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…-notio_en.html
Thank you Patrick you’ve been a great help…

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

documented at
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…-notio_en.html

Thank you Patrick you’ve been a great help…

My pleasure Tom! I went back and read the entire letter and it was very good and very pertinent to the topic of this thread.

I also liked what you found regarding art in the early Church. I remember seeing a picture in the beginning of a book I was reading once, of the Virgin Mary from the catacombs. It was dated very early.

Art has always held an important place in religion and worship…as well as music.

Thanks for your post and link to that article on early Christian art!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

As I referred to previously, images (not idolized) have been found even in the catacombs but I will refer you to the following excerpts for answers to your questions as it is too much information to copy here. If you have any other questions, please ask;

That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art.

I have not denied this nor have I tried to refute the importance of Christian Art in its use for educating the uneducated in the knowledge of Christ and his Grace.

the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas.

The art that was excepted was that art that depicted the life of Christ. As to the “fear if idols” there was no fear because converted Christians now realized that idols and those that the idols represented were nothing to be feared. Even you know through history that many Christians died because they refused to recognize and acknowledge these idols and what they represented. It would have been hypocritical of them to erect their own “imagry” and bow down to or pray to it knowing that their God, Jesus Christ, was alive and well in Heaven. They knew they were to carry his image in their hearts and their minds. Their art was their way of keeping an accurate record of the events that occurred, but they did not bow down to the artwork, nor did they pray to it.

I so want to make so many more points but am afraid that it would be taken as harsh critisism (sic) and highly offensive, yet feel that perhaps it needs to be said, but dare not.

What I wish to convey, and fear that it just isn’t being understood, is that the commandment is straight forward. Actions speak louder than words. I have read posts here of Catholics who have expressed concerns dealing with this issue and being chastized because of their expressions rather than being nurtured. It makes me wonder if correrced “veneration” of this or that hasn’t become forced idol “worship”.

But again that is not the issue at hand, so back to the OP topic

continued at
newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

btw, twb, I have the CD for this site which I use whenever it is referenced by anybody here at CAF.

twb, your attempt at explaining your position on idolatry and art are commendable, however, you still have not answered the questions. Yes, christian art has been carried down from the beginning as can be show through archaeology but this does not answer the question concerning when statuary was implemented into the religious rites of the Church, ie, worship services, nor the other questions that I put forth.

Pat, I appreciate your responses, although I may not agree with them entirely. As to prayer to others other than God or Jesus, as a former SDA member you should already know my response to that so I shan’t elaborate. The post concerning the letter of Cardinal Ratzinger is what I was looking for and I thank you for posting the link, it was more telling than I had thought. I have also copied the linked post of twb’s and will be reviewing that also.

 

[twb1621]

I have not denied this nor have I tried to refute the importance of Christian Art in its use for educating the uneducated in the knowledge of Christ and his Grace.

The art that was excepted was that art that depicted the life of Christ. As to the “fear if idols” there was no fear because converted Christians now realized that idols and those that the idols represented were nothing to be feared. Even you know through history that many Christians died because they refused to recognize and acknowledge these idols and what they represented. It would have been hypocritical of them to erect their own “imagry” and bow down to or pray to it knowing that their God, Jesus Christ, was alive and well in Heaven. They knew they were to carry his image in their hearts and their minds. Their art was their way of keeping an accurate record of the events that occurred, but they did not bow down to the artwork, nor did they pray to it.

I so want to make so many more points but am afraid that it would be taken as harsh critisism (sic) and highly offensive, yet feel that perhaps it needs to be said, but dare not.

What I wish to convey, and fear that it just isn’t being understood, is that the commandment is straight forward. Actions speak louder than words. I have read posts here of Catholics who have expressed concerns dealing with this issue and being chastized because of their expressions rather than being nurtured. It makes me wonder if correrced “veneration” of this or that hasn’t become forced idol “worship”.

But again that is not the issue at hand, so back to the OP topic

btw, twb, I have the CD for this site which I use whenever it is referenced by anybody here at CAF.

twb, your attempt at explaining your position on idolatry and art are commendable, however, you still have not answered the questions. Yes, christian art has been carried down from the beginning as can be show through archaeology but this does not answer the question concerning when statuary was implemented into the religious rites of the Church, ie, worship services, nor the other questions that I put forth.

Pat, I appreciate your responses, although I may not agree with them entirely. As to prayer to others other than God or Jesus, as a former SDA member you should already know my response to that so I shan’t elaborate. The post concerning the letter of Cardinal Ratzinger is what I was looking for and I thank you for posting the link, it was more telling than I had thought. I have also copied the linked post of twb’s and will be reviewing that also.

SK… I can see that you have a genuine concern for the issues you raise and I do believe you raise them without ill intent. Perhaps as far as the questions regarding the use of statues and how they are presented in their importance can not be explained to you in an acceptable response is because what you have concerns of does not exist in the faith of catholicism. As I said before, the statues are there and are not promoted for any specific use but strictly as art for those who choose to reflect on them. There are Catholic Churches that have no statues and it is not a requirement that any Church have statues, merely elective usually during the design or construction of a church they may be included. You misunderstand what we kneel or bow to and if there are those (and I am sure there are) who do kneel or bow before statues it is in no way worshipping those art forms but the person they reflect. As you can see historically statues and images have been in Christian structures since the aposltes and are not looked at any differently today as then. To look at a statue of Saint John or the Cross of Christ allows me and others an image to imagine these people in their lives and sufferings and devotion but if the statue should fall and break it would be no more than a loss of art work. We truely bow to the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle, but not to idolize a piece of plaster or wood. Yes, even today they are useful as tools to express the lives of those they represent because we are physical beings and relate easier to physical expressions in enabling a better idea of what may have took place or what was involved. At no time does the Catholic Church teach any necessity to use these images. They are there as art for those who wish to reflect on them and no more. They do no in any way violate the laws of God in idolitry because we never from day one ever looked at them in that way.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

SK… I can see that you have a genuine concern for the issues you raise and I do believe you raise them without ill intent. Perhaps as far as the questions regarding the use of statues and how they are presented in their importance can not be explained to you in an acceptable response is because what you have concerns of does not exist in the faith of catholicism. As I said before, the statues are there and are not promoted for any specific use but strictly as art for those who choose to reflect on them. There are Catholic Churches that have no statues and it is not a requirement that any Church have statues, merely elective usually during the design or construction of a church they may be included. You misunderstand what we kneel or bow to and if there are those (and I am sure there are) who do kneel or bow before statues it is in no way worshipping those art forms but the person they reflect. As you can see historically statues and images have been in Christian structures since the aposltes and are not looked at any differently today as then. To look at a statue of Saint John or the Cross of Christ allows me and others an image to imagine these people in their lives and sufferings and devotion but if the statue should fall and break it would be no more than a loss of art work. We truely bow to the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle, but not to idolize a piece of plaster or wood. Yes, even today they are useful as tools to express the lives of those they represent because we are physical beings and relate easier to physical expressions in enabling a better idea of what may have took place or what was involved. At no time does the Catholic Church teach any necessity to use these images. They are there as art for those who wish to reflect on them and no more. They do no in any way violate the laws of God in idolitry because we never from day one ever looked at them in that way.

This is becoming a exercise of futility. I ask three simple questions and all I get is the same rethorical answers. I have stated my position plainly and forthrightly. I understand your answers well. But the questions have not been answers. If you are stating that Jesus, or even the Apostles through the authority of Christ, approved the use of images of Christ within the Christ then, please, show me. If it wasn’t Christ or the Apostles then please show me who and when. There, I’ve narrowed it down to one image and one image only. If God forbade the making of images, even if they represented him, then why, after Christ, would he then allow them? It is inconsistant and God is not inconsistant in anything.

BTW, I may not be around much longer as I am having trouble accessing the rest of the forums on CAF and am unable to contact the Admin department concerning this issue because of the same problem. So if something happens and I’m not around, don’t think that I’ve forgotten you all, I haven’t.

 

[twb1621]

This is becoming a exercise of futility. I ask three simple questions and all I get is the same rethorical answers. I have stated my position plainly and forthrightly. I understand your answers well. But the questions have not been answers. If you are stating that Jesus, or even the Apostles through the authority of Christ, approved the use of images of Christ within the Christ then, please, show me. If it wasn’t Christ or the Apostles then please show me who and when. There, I’ve narrowed it down to one image and one image only. If God forbade the making of images, even if they represented him, then why, after Christ, would he then allow them? It is inconsistant and God is not inconsistant in anything.

BTW, I may not be around much longer as I am having trouble accessing the rest of the forums on CAF and am unable to contact the Admin department concerning this issue because of the same problem. So if something happens and I’m not around, don’t think that I’ve forgotten you all, I haven’t.

 

[twb1621]

This is becoming a exercise of futility. …
BTW, I may not be around much longer as I am having trouble accessing the rest of the forums on CAF and am unable to contact the Admin department concerning this issue because of the same problem. So if something happens and I’m not around, don’t think that I’ve forgotten you all, I haven’t.

If you have trouble on the forum or you have a question you wish to ask privately you are welcome to PM me and I will be glad to respond.

Before I go on, let me say this regardless of whether you want to hear it because it is important to understand. First, any Catholic who questions the presence of images in
Church does not have a true knowledge of his faith. With no disrespect intended to you SK, I usually find it somewhat humorous when someone raises the issue of Catholics using graven images or idols.

When any Catholic including me bows, genuflects, or kneels, they are doing so in the presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the Eucharist held in the tabernacle. This is a sign of reverence to He who we worship. When passing in front of the tabernacle we stop and Bow in reverence to Jesus again in the tabernacle. I actually find it very saddening today at how many Catholics no longer kneel and perform the sign of the cross before entering the pew or when they exit the pew before turning their backs on the alter area. I also find it distressing at how many people will hang inside the Church after mass socializing as though in a fire hall totally ignoring the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle. I am 54 years of age and was taught these signs of respect and reverence throughout my youth and although I left the Church for several years under my own misconceptions, there is without doubt a great lacking in today’s attitude when it comes to the recognition of the presence of God in His house. In any case, none of it has to do with images for a Catholic, only the savior.

Onward;
I have answered your question in many instances but you are not getting it apparently. Obviously the apostles accepted the use of images or they would not have been found in the catacombs. A recent archeological find in Jordan within the last year was unearthed and is believed to be (through dating and its location) the first Christian Church used by the apostles underground dated around 50 to 70 AD. In it so far has been found various forms of artifacts, imagery on the walls and encryptions.

The apostles knew Jesus and had no reason other than for reflection and education to use such items. So it started at the beginning of the Church with the Apostles. It should also be noted that at any time anyone was found to be misusing those statues in a way that constituted idolatry it was quickly corrected in whatever way was deemed necessary because at that time there were still those who fell into such practices. I ask, do you only see the literal aspects in what is written in the bible without seeing meaning? If one does, he or she does not understand the teachings nor can he or she have a meaningful relationship with God because God is not a compilation of books, but the Supreme Being and our Creator. His word is not specifically limited but has true meaning that extends beyond text.

Recently we received an 80-page booklet entitled “What’s Behind The New World Order?” It can be traced back to the writings of Ellen G. White, foundress of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. According to this booklet, the Catholic Church is behind the New World Order. The booklet claims that this is true, since the Church is the beast of Revelation (Rev. 17). It attempts to prove this claim by exposing the “marks of the beast.” Due to limited space, only one charge will be considered. This is a common charge used against the Catholic Church.
According to this booklet, one “mark of the beast” is the alteration of God’s Commandments. The booklet claims that the Catholic Church dropped the “Second Commandment” which forbids “graven images”, i.e. statues. Allegedly the Catholic Church condones statue worship.
Now one version of the Ten Commandments can be found in the fifth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy (also Exodus 20). Comparing Deut. 5:6-21 in a Catholic Bible with that found in a Protestant Bible reveals no essential differences. A few words may differ but that is due to differing translations. The major difference is not content but how Catholics and Protestants traditionally divide up and number these Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible lumps the Ten Commandments all together without division or numbering. (The verse numbers are no help since they were added by Bible scholars many centuries after Christ.)
Traditionally Catholics consider Deut. 5:6-10 as the First Commandment, verse 11 as the Second Commandment, verses 12-15 as the Third Commandment and so on. Verse 21 is split up into the Ninth and Tenth Commandments - distinguishing the desire (lust) to commit adultery from the desire (greed) to steal. This division scheme was advocated by St. Augustine in his writings on Exodus. Traditionally Protestants consider Deut. 5:6-7 as the First Commandment, verses 8-10 as the Second Commandment, verse 11 as the Third Commandment and so on. Verse 21 is kept together as the Tenth Commandment.

1 of 3

 

[twb1621]

2 of 3
continued from previous post
According to the RSV Bible and Catholic Tradition, the First Commandment is:

(6)I am the LORD your God,…(7)You shall have no other gods before me. (8)You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (9)you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (10)but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [Deut. 5:6-10; RSV]

Verse 7 forbids the worship of other gods, while verses 8-9 forbid the making of graven (carved) images that would be worshipped as gods, i.e. idols. Now worshipping statues with divine honor is one way of worshipping other gods. Verse 7 is a general statement of the First Commandment, while verses 8-9 give a specific case of this Commandment. Verses 9-10 present the punishments and rewards that are associated with these Commandments.
By combining together Deut. 5:6-10 into one Commandment, the Catholic Church is accused of altering the Commandments and covering up God’s command forbidding graven images. Suspicions are further fueled when Catholic books only present the general form of the Commandment, Deut. 5:7, in order to expedite memorization. Now one must ask the question: “Does God forbid the making of statues, or does He condemn the worship of statues?” If God condemns the divine worship of statues, then the Catholic division scheme is justified since these images would be “other gods before” Him. A separate Commandment based on Deut. 5:8-10 would be redundant.
Now if God simply forbids the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed. Now it is true that centuries later King Hezekiah destroyed it; however, this action was done because the people worshipped it as a god (2 Kings 18:4). In the Gospel, Jesus compared Himself to the bronze serpent (John 3:14). Continuing in the Old Testament, the inner sanctuary of the Temple contained two large statues of angels according to 1 Kings 6:23-28. In the following verses, Solomon also had the walls of the Temple decorated with carved images of angels, palm trees and flowers (1 Kings 6:29ff). During the Babylonian Captivity, Ezekiel had a vision from God about the design of the new Temple. According to Ezekiel 41:17-25, this new Temple contained graven images of angels and palm trees. These passages in the Bible indicate that God does not forbid the making of statues. If God truly condemned the making of graven images in the “Second Commandment”, then He must have changed His mind later in the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued a clear statement concerning images and statues. According to the 25th Session of this General Council:

The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss…or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent (TAN Books, 1978) p. 215-6]

The Church does NOT compel her members to kneel or pray before images. No one is allowed by the Church to pray to images since they have no ears to hear or power to help us. The Church allows for the veneration of images as long as the honor is directed towards Christ and His saints.
On a related issue, some Christians may object to the veneration of images of the saints since they believe that honor should be directed towards God alone and not towards Mary or the saints (1 Tim. 1:17). This objection arises from a confusion between divine honor (adoration - supreme honor proper only for God) and respectful honor proper for men. According to the Bible, the people of God bowed down before King David to show him honor (2 Sam. 24:20; 1 Chron. 29:20; 21:21). Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:7 fell prostrate before Elijah showing him reverence for being a prophet of God. In the Ten Commandments, we are told to honor our mother and father (Deut. 5:16). Even Jesus defended and obeyed this Commandment (Mark 7:9-13; Luke 2:51). At least for Mary, our honor to her is in imitation of Jesus, her Son (1 Cor. 11:1). The Church allows for the veneration of the saints and their images as long as it remains honor proper for men. It is good to honor the saints for their love and trust in God (Matt. 22:31-32; Heb. 11:1-12:1).

continued

 

[twb1621]

continued 3 of 3
The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the “Second Commandment” as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God’s Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments. If this difference is scandalous, it would be interesting to know what the author of the booklet thought of Jesus Christ when He reduced God’s Commandments to the Two Great Commandments in Matt. 22:36-40. Finally the Church strictly condemns the adoration (divine worship) of statues, images or even the saints, since this is idolatry and in direct violation of the First Commandment. For Christians a crucifix should not be considered merely as a statue of Jesus hanging on a cross, but as a reminder of the high cost of our salvation as well as His words to us:

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” [Mark 8:34]
users.binary.net/polycarp/graven.html

 

[Thing]

… But the questions have not been answers. If you are stating that Jesus, or even the Apostles through the authority of Christ, approved the use of images of Christ within the Christ then, please, show me. If it wasn’t Christ or the Apostles then please show me who and when. There, I’ve narrowed it down to one image and one image only. If God forbade the making of images, even if they represented him, then why, after Christ, would he then allow them? It is inconsistant and God is not inconsistant in anything.

…

You have made the initial mistake of thinking that God forbade the making of images, so any argument will by necessity go over your head.

God forbids the placing of false gods before Him. Whether these are gods we make with our hands or with our hearts and minds.

“You Shall Love The Lord Your God With All Your Heart, With All Your Soul, With All Your Strength And With All Your Mind…”

Money, food, the self, can all be made into false gods when one sacrifices Truth for them.

Alternatively one may decide to make a false god in a physical way and set about gathering materials and constructing what one intends to be a false god, or god.
To that false god alone do you look; and turn your face from the True God. A false god takes on in ones mind and belief the power of the True God. The piece of stick or stone determines yor future, your happiness, your progress, and your fate.

Artwork, which sounds suddenly mundane, is not a collection of gods.
Art in Christianity is a language which tells the viewer about the One True God; as the Scriptures tell the reader about the One True God.

If you need any further clarification or elaboration on this don’t hesitate to reply.