How are blessed items not "idols"

[hosemonkey]

hosemonky, had you read any of my posts on this thread, you would not have read any stated opinion by me, one way or the other, concerning the Catholic veneration of icons; if you want to venerate icons, that’s your business; my discussion pertained to Gal 3:1.

As an ex-Catholic, I have more than an adequate understanding of your Catholic things, hosemonkey.

If that is indeed true, then you would not be raising the question, you would have already known what the Catholic belief and practice is. BTW, why did you apostasize?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You must not be aware of how people ‘preached’ in a non literate society as opposed to a contemporary one. Do you think that Paul just stood on a soapbox and read from a script in order to ‘preach the word’?

Jesus (to give an example) did not just use ‘words’. His preachings, especially in the parables, were remarkable for the imagery they evoked, not just in sound but in sight, and other senses. He ‘picked a fruit from fig tree’, he ‘showed a grain of mustard’, etc. He used ‘props’, he used sensory aids. Storytellers and preachers did this as a matter of course.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

Your argument that CM or myself would be taking a literalist view of Gal 3:1 is unfounded and cannot be substantiated. I see no proof in any of your presentations on this thread that this is a literalist view as opposed to our contention that it is the literal meaning of the text.

You also sight the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that “the crucifix was practically unknown” at the time of Constantine. That statement does not mean that it was completely unknown. Moreover, the popularity or interest in a particular type of religious art work does not negate its existence nor the meaning of the text as plainly seen in Gal 3:1. You are attempting to make the statement mean or say more than it does. Moreover, a crucifix generally refers to a physical wooden cross with a sculpted figure. That does not eliminate pictorial renditions which could have easily been popular long before the sculpted crucifix itself.

Your argument is weak and not definitive from a historical point of view because the source used does not eliminate any and all knowledge of crucifixes before the time of Constantine, and the statement in no way directly addresses Gal 3:1. Moreover, there are many artifacts whether they are religious or secular that have been lost and will never be recovered. The lack of pervasive knowledge of such things, at a given period of time in history, would not negate their existence.

 

[Pax]

Then based on your reasoning you could not argue against someone saying that Paul and his companions probably put on a puppet show or a street theater depicting “before their eyes” Christ being crucified.

But the truth is he did no such thing. In all the cities he entered on his missionary journeys he “preached” the gospel message:1 Cor. 15:1-4 "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"We see the “word” of the gospel being spoken in the historical book of Acts:Acts 8:4 “Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”

Acts 10:36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)”

Acts 11:1 “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.”

Acts 11:14 "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

Acts 13:7 “This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.”

Acts 13:49 "And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region."Paul took the “word of the cross” to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:18) - and it was this “word” that was preached also to the Galatians. God at times gave them miraculous powers as a sign to validate the truth of the “word” they “preached,” – but not pictures, not puppet shows and not street theaters. Christ portrayed as crucified was through the spoken "word."You’re missing the whole issue of this thread. It’s not about symbols, or even having symbols adorn a Church building, but how they’re used in worship. Should they be bowed before? Prayed before? Kissed? Mystically blessed to give it some extraordinary significance? The point has already been made that you find no such behavior “portrayed before your eyes” in the N.T. Scriptures. Why? Because the age of “shadows” was passed. Messiah had come. This Church age is an age of FAITH - “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”

You could not be more wrong. You are speaking with a degree of confidence that is completely unfounded. You actually expect anyone to believe that you can say without any doubt or equivocation as to everything Paul did or did not do while preaching? You are not in a position to dismiss our view of Gal 3:1 with any certainty because you were not there. Moreover, you cannot reasonably apply the other scriptures to disprove our view. Your effort in this regard does not work because none of the verses are operative refutations. None of them were written to qualify what is going on in Gal 3:1 and any reasonable person will see that.

You also accused me of missing the point of this thread. Since when have you been able to read minds. Admittedly, there may not be a great deal going on inside my head, but I dare say that you have little or no grasp of what those meager thoughts and understandings might be.

FYI: I fully grasp what this thread is about.

 

[sandusky]

hosemonkey:

If that is indeed true, then you would not be raising the question, you would have already known what the Catholic belief and practice is.

I didn’t raise a question, but clarified a statement on the meaning of Gal 3:1; can you cite the interpretation of the magesterium on that verse? If not, then my understanding and interpretation of that passage is as valid (and probably more valid) than the private interpretation of any Catholic—laity, or clergy.

hosemonkey:

BTW, why did you apostasize?

According to the Roman Catholic Church, I didn’t apostatize, hosemonkey; apostasy would entail a total repudiation of the Christian faith as stated in para 2089 of the catechism of the RCC (ahh, how I love the ambiguity and the irony of that paragraph); obviously you don’t know much about your own catechism; but hopefully, this night, you have learned something about erroneously, and uncharitably accusing another of apostasy.

 

[hosemonkey]

I didn’t raise a question, but clarified a statement on the meaning of Gal 3:1; can you cite the interpretation of the magesterium on that verse? If not, then my understanding and interpretation of that passage is as valid (and probably more valid) than the private interpretation of any Catholic—laity, or clergy.

According to the Roman Catholic Church, I didn’t apostatize, hosemonkey; apostasy would entail a total repudiation of the Christian faith as stated in para 2089 of the catechism of the RCC (ahh, how I love the ambiguity and the irony of that paragraph); obviously you don’t know much about your own catechism; but hopefully, this night, you have learned something about erroneously, and uncharitably accusing another of apostasy.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary describes apostacy as renouncing or abandoning the faith. You have obviously abandoned the True Church.

 

[sandusky]

hosemonkey:

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary describes apostacy as renouncing or abandoning the faith. You have obviously abandoned the True Church.

So you reject the definition of apostasy in the CCC, a catechism commissioned by JPII, and chaired by your present Pope? You are a gusty guy, hosemonkey!

I too, agree more with Webster’s definition, than with the definition of the CCC. Webster’s definition is close to the definition of Hebrews 6, and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1979; Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, vol. I, pg. 192, which I will not quote, as it would be too controversial on this forum, but you can find a copy for yourself and read it.

Be that as it may, as a Catholic, for you to adopt Webster’s definition of apostasy as your own, opens a theological can of worms for you, such that you might want to reconsider and go with the CCC definition of apostasy to save your skin on this forum.

Here is what I mean; Hebrews 6:4-6 says of apostasy:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

What do you do with all of the Catholic reverts in the Church, and on this forum?

I don’t know why the CCC’s definition differs from Webster’s, the ISBE, and Hebrews 6, but it does.

BTW, you’ve learned nothing about accusing another of apostasy, but you have learned that the CCC definition of apostasy does not square with scripture; IMO, that’s an important lesson to learn.

Again, hosemonkey, according to the definition of apostasy in the CCC, I have not apostatized, as I have not fully repudiated the Christian faith, but only the RCC.

 

[hosemonkey]

So you reject the definition of apostasy in the CCC, a catechism commissioned by JPII, and chaired by your present Pope? You are a gusty guy, hosemonkey!

I too, agree more with Webster’s definition, than with the definition of the CCC. Webster’s definition is close to the definition of Hebrews 6, and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1979; Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, vol. I, pg. 192, which I will not quote, as it would be too controversial on this forum, but you can find a copy for yourself and read it.

Be that as it may, as a Catholic, for you to adopt Webster’s definition of apostasy as your own, opens a theological can of worms for you, such that you might want to reconsider and go with the CCC definition of apostasy to save your skin on this forum.

Here is what I mean; Hebrews 6:4-6 says of apostasy:What do you do with all of the Catholic reverts in the Church, and on this forum?

I don’t know why the CCC’s definition differs from Webster’s, the ISBE, and Hebrews 6, but it does.

BTW, you’ve learned nothing about accusing another of apostasy, but you have learned that the CCC definition of apostasy does not square with scripture; IMO, that’s an important lesson to learn.

Again, hosemonkey, according to the definition of apostasy in the CCC, I have not apostatized, as I have not fully repudiated the Christian faith, but only the RCC.

You have defended your apostacy on the basis of the difference in a few words, but you know what is meant by the word “apostasy”, of which you are guilty and you know it. The differences in a definition will not lessen your sin.
If you have repudiated the Catholic faith, you have repudiated the fullness of the Christian faith and you need to worry very much about the fate of YOUR skin.

 

[sweetirishct]

The reason you have an item, such as a rosary or crucifix, blessed is twofold - 1 - the item is therefore dedicated to divine worship or veneration (ie the rosary is used to meditate on the life of Jesus and not as a piece of jewelry or decoration) and 2 - the Church has attached a plenary or a partial indulgence to the praying of certain prayers using the blessed item while meeting certain other conditions such as sacramental Confession and Communion.

ADORATION OF THE CROSS. A PLENARY INDULGENCE to those who in solemn liturgical action of Good Friday devoutly assist in at the adoration of the Cross and kiss it. (link also contains more information on indulgences and practices which are enriched with indulgences)
catholic.org/prayers/indulgw.php

In particular, there are indulgences attached to using a blessed rosary:

A partial indulgence may be gained once a day by the faithful who kissing a blessed Rosary, which they carry with them, at the same time recite the first part of the Hail Mary up to “Jesus” inclusive. There are others attached to the rosary but I didn’t quote them all in the interest of brevity.
theholyrosary.org/power.html

Also, it is necessary to dispose of blessed items, such as a broken rosary, in the approved manner.
Once a religious object is blessed and dedicated for divine worship or veneration, it must be treated with reverence and not be used in either an improper or profane way (cf. Code of Canon Law, no. 1171).
However, blessed religious objects break or wear from use. The basic rule for the disposition of these items is to burn or to bury them.
cukierski.net/disposingofblessedobjects.shtml (this link has more information on blessed objects and their uses)

THANK YOU
THANK YOU
THANK YOU!!!

Great explanation and thanks for the links… Going to click them now…

 

[sandusky]

hosemonkey:

You have defended your apostacy on the basis of the difference in a few words, but you know what is meant by the word “apostasy”, of which you are guilty and you know it. The differences in a definition will not lessen your sin.

Sorry, hosemonkey, but according to paragraph 2089 of the CCC, I have not apostatized, and neither has any current or future Catholic revert; you are wrong according to the Catholic Church. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Vatican.

hosemonkey:

If you have repudiated the Catholic faith, you have repudiated the fullness of the Christian faith…

Again, hosemonkey, read paragraph 2089 of the CCC; words have meanings for a reason; paragraph 2089 says nothing about repudiating “the fullness of the Christian faith,” but a “total repudiation of the Christian faith.”

Unless you believe that non-Catholics are not Christians; do you?

I ask you again, hosemonkey, how do you deal with those who have apostatized from the RCC according to your’s and Webster’s definition of apostasy, and then reverted to the RCC from their apostasy when Hebrews 6 says that it is impossible for them to be renewed again to repentance?

How do you work that out in your mind?

…and you need to worry very much about the fate of YOUR skin.

Words have meanings for a reason hosemonkey; if you ignore the CCC definition of apostasy in para 2089, and insist on embracing Webster’s definition of apostasy, then neither I, an ex-Catholic, nor any Catholic revert needs to worry at all about our fate because it has already been determined; Hebrews 6 says that we cannot be renewed again to repentance.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The difference is GOD told them to make these items for HIS purpose. God did not tell the Israelites to make the golden calf - nor does He tell us to make religious images to bow and pray before and to kiss.

You are only partly correct. As you say, God did indeed specifically command the making of some religious statues (the cherubim statues on top the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent statue). However, unless I am mistaken, the other religious statues in Solomon’s Temple were not specifically commanded by God (the two 15-foot-tall cherubim statues, the countless carved cherubim figures that covered the walls and doors of the Temple, and the twelve bronze oxen statues to support the bronze sea just outside the Temple) but God was pleased with all these other religious statues as well when He filled the Temple with his glory.

The uncommanded cherubim statues and carved figures in Solomon’s Temple represented the angels in heaven. Similarly, the Jesus Christ statues, the angel statues and the saint statues in Catholic churches represent Jesus Christ, the angels and saints who are now in heaven. (Hebrew 12:22-24)

Anyone who bowed and prayed to God or bowed and prayerfully addressed His angels (Psalms 103:21-22; Psalm 148:2) while within Solomon’s Temple would necessarily have bowed and prayed before the religious statues contained therein.

Also, though the Son of God was kissed on occasion, the last I heard, kissing was not reserved for divine worship only. (2 Corinthians 13:12)

 

[Pryority7]

Then based on your reasoning you could not argue against someone saying that Paul and his companions probably put on a puppet show or a street theater depicting “before their eyes” Christ being crucified.

But the truth is he did no such thing. In all the cities he entered on his missionary journeys he “preached” the gospel message:1 Cor. 15:1-4 "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"We see the “word” of the gospel being spoken in the historical book of Acts:Acts 8:4 “Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”

Acts 10:36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)”

Acts 11:1 “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.”

Acts 11:14 "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

Acts 13:7 “This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.”

Acts 13:49 "And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region."Paul took the “word of the cross” to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:18) - and it was this “word” that was preached also to the Galatians. God at times gave them miraculous powers as a sign to validate the truth of the “word” they “preached,” – but not pictures, not puppet shows and not street theaters. Christ portrayed as crucified was through the spoken "word."You’re missing the whole issue of this thread. It’s not about symbols, or even having symbols adorn a Church building, but how they’re used in worship. Should they be bowed before? Prayed before? Kissed? Mystically blessed to give it some extraordinary significance? The point has already been made that you find no such behavior “portrayed before your eyes” in the N.T. Scriptures. Why? Because the age of “shadows” was passed. Messiah had come. This Church age is an age of FAITH - “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”

P7:And once again you’ve ignored the statement I made regarding you conveniently leaving out a verse in that reading…too legalistic for you, isnt’ it?

Apo: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You never responded to this apo…This is what I’m talking about. You dissappeared from the thread after this…why don’t you address it? It’s God’s Word, right? Well, please…enlighten us pagans…

2 Corinthians 5:10…once again, too legalistic?

P7

Once again…duck and hide…
P7

---

 

[apophasis]

You are only partly correct. As you say, God did indeed specifically command the making of some religious statues (the cherubim statues on top the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent statue). However, unless I am mistaken, the other religious statues in Solomon’s Temple were not specifically commanded by God (the two 15-foot-tall cherubim statues, the countless carved cherubim figures that covered the walls and doors of the Temple, and the twelve bronze oxen statues to support the bronze sea just outside the Temple) but God was pleased with all these other religious statues as well when He filled the Temple with his glory.

The uncommanded cherubim statues and carved figures in Solomon’s Temple represented the angels in heaven. Similarly, the Jesus Christ statues, the angel statues and the saint statues in Catholic churches represent Jesus Christ, the angels and saints who are now in heaven. (Hebrew 12:22-24)

Anyone who bowed and prayed to God or bowed and prayerfully addressed His angels (Psalms 103:21-22; Psalm 148:2) while within Solomon’s Temple would necessarily have bowed and prayed before the religious statues contained therein.

Also, though the Son of God was kissed on occasion, the last I heard, kissing was not reserved for divine worship only. (2 Corinthians 13:12)

We’re not talking about adornment but items employed in worship. The Jews were careful to use only those items prescribed by God. But there are no such items prescribed in the N.T. for churches:Col. 3:14-16 "Beyond all these things {put on} love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms {and} hymns {and} spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Also, though the Son of God was kissed on occasion, the last I heard, kissing was not reserved for divine worship only. (2 Corinthians 13:12)

Where is kissing ever reserved for divine worship? 2 Cor. 13:12 is in reference to the culture of the time. I don’t see Catholic or Protestants in America kissing one another when they enter the doors of their churches. What’s your point here?

 

[apophasis]

P7:And once again you’ve ignored the statement I made regarding you conveniently leaving out a verse in that reading…too legalistic for you, isnt’ it?

Apo: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You never responded to this apo…This is what I’m talking about. You dissappeared from the thread after this…why don’t you address it? It’s God’s Word, right? Well, please…enlighten us pagans…

2 Corinthians 5:10…once again, too legalistic?

Seriously, man, have you ever considered therapy? I covered 2 Cor. 5:10 in previous posts. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Purgatory.

Are there stalking rules on this forum?

 

[sweetirishct]

Well, thank you to everyone who posted responses to help me answer my question. I am sure that I will come up with others, but for now I am all set on this.

However, if those who are going back-and-forth would choose to continue, be my guest. But you should know, that from someone on the outside of the discussion, it looks to be quite circular at this point.:whacky: Alot of fingerpointing, and it basically comes down to everyones interpretation, and everyone thinking they are right (my guess would be something like the divide between Protestant and Catholic thinking, in a nutshell). I hope you can find a peaceful solution, and come to a point of agreeing to disagree.

Thanks again to all who helped me find my answers, I am reading and looking to the resources you provided!

 

[TobyLue]

And on that note, what about santuaries (actually, that is not the word I am looking for, but it is late and I am foggy)

Are you possibly thinking of the word “reliquaries”?

 

[sweetirishct]

Are you possibly thinking of the word “reliquaries”?

(actually I meant shrines…)

 

[TobyLue]

Alot of fingerpointing, and it** basically comes down to everyones **interpretation, and everyone thinking they are right (my guess would be something like the divide between Protestant and Catholic thinking, in a nutshell).

First let’s get things straight. The Catholic Church has had the same interpretation since its beginning 2000 years ago. This interpretation was handed down by the Apostles who in turn handed it down to their disciples. Jesus taught the Apostles. They didn’t make up their own interpretations. The Protestants have 10,000 or more different interpretations in about 500 years. Their’s is their “everyone for himself interpretations” So it’s not a pick-and-choose whichever interpretations I like or make up my own, but to follow the interpretation of the Church that Jesus founded. That **actually **is it in a nutshell.

 

[apophasis]

You could not be more wrong. You are speaking with a degree of confidence that is completely unfounded.

I don’t think so.1 Cor 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

You actually expect anyone to believe that you can say without any doubt or equivocation as to everything Paul did or did not do while preaching?

Scripture itself gives us a prettey good description of Paul’s missionary journeys. And as you can see by the passages I provided, He “preached” the “word” of the cross.1 Cor. 1:23 “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,”

You are not in a position to dismiss our view of Gal 3:1 with any certainty because you were not there.

But Luke was there and he wrote about it. Paul was there and he wrote about it.

Moreover, you cannot reasonably apply the other scriptures to disprove our view.

Of course I can. Yours, however, has no Scriptural or historical support.

Your effort in this regard does not work because none of the verses are operative refutations.

Sure they are.

None of them were written to qualify what is going on in Gal 3:1 and any reasonable person will see that.

Paul preached the same “word of the cross” in every area he visited.

 

[hosemonkey]

Sorry, hosemonkey, but according to paragraph 2089 of the CCC, I have not apostatized, and neither has any current or future Catholic revert; you are wrong according to the Catholic Church. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Vatican.

Again, hosemonkey, read paragraph 2089 of the CCC; words have meanings for a reason; paragraph 2089 says nothing about repudiating “the fullness of the Christian faith,” but a “total repudiation of the Christian faith.”

Unless you believe that non-Catholics are not Christians; do you?

I ask you again, hosemonkey, how do you deal with those who have apostatized from the RCC according to your’s and Webster’s definition of apostasy, and then reverted to the RCC from their apostasy when Hebrews 6 says that it is impossible for them to be renewed again to repentance?

How do you work that out in your mind?

Words have meanings for a reason hosemonkey; if you ignore the CCC definition of apostasy in para 2089, and insist on embracing Webster’s definition of apostasy, then neither I, an ex-Catholic, nor any Catholic revert needs to worry at all about our fate because it has already been determined; Hebrews 6 says that we cannot be renewed again to repentance.

I KNOW that I am right, you had better HOPE that you are right.