Protestants listen up

[Hercules253]

---

Elvis man, you’re really clueless aren’t you? That was the worse lecture I ever had and honestly, you are misinformed because you have no idea about Scripture or your own Catholic history…you make Catholics look real bad with your $2.99 mail-in cereal box theology certificate…that’s very sad…so shall we continue?

Moses made a bronze snake for people to cure their snake bites. Did any veneration take place? No.
When they made the Ark of the Covenant…did any veneration take place? Once again No!

In regards to the Ark of the Covenant, They worship Yahweh because HE WAS PRESENT in the ark…big difference!
They didn’t pray “through” or “to” the ark or any cherubim, they pray “to” God who was present at the ark. It wasn’t the ark speaking, It was God speaking over the ark. It was called his Dwelling place and throne because he was Present and dwelling there!
The ark didn’t represent God like a statue represents Mary, God was actually present there! That has nothing to do with idols so your analogy was far off like your ability to comprehend anything.

No one is spiritual present in a Mary statue, especially if God didn’t command anyone in construct it.

So let me tell you a little bit about Catholic History since they don’t teach this to you in Sunday school. Are you with me so far? Most likely not but anyways…

Pope Leo in 717 forbade anyone to use icons “veneration”
In 730, Pope Leo issued an edict against icons
under new ruling, Constatine V carried the policy
In 753, a council was summoned to condemn all icons and “veneration” of them
Another Leo that assumed the throne continued the policy.
emperor Theophilus also opposed it

Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, A.D. 754 This is an official Catholic doctrine direct from the Catholic Church.

You should read it, you might learn something for your own good.

This is an official Catholic document that goes on to say that “veneration” of an object representing anything is considered “double blasphemy” and “foolish” and “assigning names to images” were evil. Furthermore, here’s what it states verbatim:

“Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers.”

“If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself”

Now, this is not talking about just “worship”…its talking about “veneration of statues and icons”…
**
The funny thing is that you have no clue about your own church! You think that only protestants were against icon veneration but The Catholic Church itself and the head of the church, the Popes (you know, the guy that is suppose to rightly lead the Church), along with the East and West Catholic churches were killing themselves over that dispute because they were struggling with this issue! The protest against veneration of icons lasted all the way until 848 in the Orthodox East, a hundred years later but iconoclast movements and the controversy were still disputed and never truly settled.
It only started to wind down because of the countless bloodshed. But at one point, the Catholic Church got rid of all the statues and veneration of statues. (and then they went back to reinstate the use of statues because they couldn’t make up their mind. Talk about an infallible church huh?) Unfortunately this isn’t even in your Catechism book so its not a surprise that you don’t have any idea. This dark history is a hard fact that you’re going to have to accept **

I already discussed the matter with pictures. If you actually read the earlier thread you would understand before you quickly just jump into a conversation. Do you “venerate” or “bow” to your photo? Of course not, so that poor example is discounted. The argument was never about Mary or worship, it was about veneration by bowing to statues.Now you should probably stop spreading your ignorance before you continue sounding foolish!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I appreciate that your post was not written out of snug arrogance (like most posts I’ve read on this subject are), but out of care for “us”. So thank you for that

However, you have not done anything else than make a lot of statements. You have not backed them up at all. And even though I’m not calling you a liar, the possibility remains that it is you who are in the wrong on this one, and not “us”, just as the reverse might be true.

See, the reason I say this here is that I’ve seen a number of threads that practically called people who don’t venerate (and yes, I do know the difference between worship and veneration) the Virgin Mary stupid, arrogant, selfish and lots of other nasty things, just because we ask for further evidence than “because the RC church say so”.

I have yet to see a single solid, biblical, argument for the kind of emphasis the RC church places on Mary.

Thanks for intervening - that’s ecumenism ​

 

[Walden]

Pope Leo in 717 forbade anyone to use icons “veneration”
In 730, Pope Leo issued an edict against icons
under new ruling, Constatine V carried the policy
In 753, a council was summoned to condemn all icons and “veneration” of them
Another Leo that assumed the throne continued the policy.
emperor Theophilus also opposed it

You mean EMPEROR Leo III?? Byzantine Emperor?? Leo III Isaurian? No such thing as Pope Leo in 717. The Pope during the Iconoclastic heresy was Pope St. Gregory II. In fact, Pope Gregory EXCOMMUNICATED Emperor Leo precisely because of what you are espousing. (by the way, Leo responded by threatening to imprison Gregory) The papacy and the Western Church held fast against Iconoclasm, which, ironically had crept into the Eastern Church because of the Muslims. Very sad business.

Google is your friend. I suggest you check whatever materials you are using.

Constantine the Fifth??? Who is that? Certainly not a pope. Oh, he was Leo III’s son who carried on his father’s persecutions.

History, my friend, is most definitely NOT something you should appeal to in this argument.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

You mean EMPEROR Leo III?? Byzantine Emperor?? Leo III Isaurian? No such thing as Pope Leo in 717. The Pope during the Iconoclastic heresy was Pope St. Gregory II. In fact, Pope Gregory EXCOMMUNICATED Emperor Leo precisely because of what you are espousing. (by the way, Leo responded by threatening to imprison Gregory) The papacy and the Western Church held fast against Iconoclasm, which, ironically had crept into the Eastern Church because of the Muslims. Very sad business.

Google is your friend. I suggest you check whatever materials you are using.

Constantine the Fifth??? Who is that? Certainly not a pope. Oh, he was Leo III’s son who carried on his father’s persecutions.

History, my friend, is most definitely NOT something you should appeal to in this argument.

 

[rinnie]

You know when I started this thread all I wanted to do was to show people out there that if they would open their minds and really search and give it some deep thought they could see what a wonderful gift the Blessed Mother is.

The reason she came to my mind the other night, and the reason I started this thread was me and my Mom were talking and she said, what would we do if we didn’t have God to rely on. And what would we do without the Love and Prayers of the Blessed Mother to get us through. Just think of the People who don’t know how much she can help them, and how much she also shares in their suffering.

But I have seen something on this thread that I really haven’t seen for a long time. Many Protestants stood UP FOR THE BLESSED MOTHER. Wow. That was great.

I believe that they are now understanding alot more about how she is such a help to us, and how her prayers and Love for us exists.

Protestants keep digging. Keep studying. Go back to the early Fathers of the Church. Even if you hate Catholic’s you will see more and more truth in our faith if you learn it. You don’t ever have to come to the Church, thats fine. But stand up for the truth, and if nothing else stick up for the Mother of Christ. Love her, Honor her, and use her as a role model in your life. Learn from her.

Hercules253 I am sorry that it upsets you that we use the Apostolic succcession, Tradition to prove our point. But it does just that proves our point! And it is as much Gods word as the bible is Gods word.

My whole goal was to go to People that are really suffering right now. And in this world its only going to get worse. Just know that she is there, Remember the Love that your Mother had for you, Thats the love I am talking about.

Think of your child in trouble, think what you would do for that child suffering. Remember the Blessed Mother Loves you every bit as much as you love your child, Now think of not what she would do for you or your child, think of what she CAN do for you or your child. She can go right to God, Not only can, she will. Now why would anyone ever not want the Mother of God to help them in their suffering. Its not just the proof of even people who have turned away from the faith, luther, calvin.etc. Early Fathers of the church that believed in her prayers, ITs I am sharing with you the truth what she has done in my life. And I just want that help for you. Not to hurt anyone, not to have anyone worship a false idol, and turn away from God. I want you to know she can bring you closer to God. So can Peter, all of the angels and Saints all you have to do is ask. God gave them Power on this earth. Remember what he said to Peter, God gave him the Power on heaven and Earth. That still stands. They can help you in heaven, just as they did on earth.

 

[rinnie]

Also All have heard is we don’t need the prayers of the Blessed Mother we can pray for ourself. I will not deny that. But answer me this: Anyone

When Jesus said to Peter. Peter I prayed for you. Who’s prayer do you think had more power. The prayer of Jesus or the Prayer of Peter?

Next question who’s Prayer do you think has more power the prayer of the Mother of Christ or ours?

Why did Jesus say that to Peter, make a point to say I PRAYED FOR YOU PETER. Wonder why he didn’t just say Pray for yourself Peter.

Could it be that the more sinless and Holy you are, the more your prayers are to be heard. Maybe Job would have that answer?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That was the worse lecture I ever had and honestly, you are misinformed because you have no idea about Scripture or your own Catholic history…you make Catholics look real bad with your $2.99 mail-in cereal box theology certificate…that’s very sad…so shall we continue?

The argument was never about Mary or worship, it was about veneration by bowing to statues.Now you should probably stop spreading your ignorance before you continue sounding foolish!

If you want to discuss Catholic history, why don’t we start with the Sacred Scriptures that the Catholic Church defined the canon of, and preserved for hundreds of years?

Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant reformation recognized it.

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

The Catholic Church defined the canon of the Bible and preserved it for hundreds of years, yet they do not know the interpretation of scriptures? That’s something that only comes from modern private interpretation? That’s seems to be pretty arrogant to me.

Stop spreading ignorance? Is that a personal attack or an attack against Catholicism itself? Either way, I find it disrespectful. That’s a good way to get people to enter into an honest discussion with you, for sure.

You’ve twisted history, situations and scriptures to fit your theology, in my opinion.

You’ve seen something you evidently do not understand, assumed what is going on in a person’s mind and heart, and made a judgement against an entire Church. I’ve seen Pentecostal snake handlers. Is it safe to assume all Protestants are snake handlers? There are some Protestants that reject the Trinity, is it safe to assume all Protestants reject the Triune God? Some Protestants display pictures of Jesus and put up nativity scenes at Christmas, are they idolizing those scenes? These are just examples and I do not believe or expect a yes answer to any of those questions.

So you have to bow to idolize? Photos are a poor example? Are they not an image other than God? Wasn’t it you that quoted the following scripture?

Deuteronomy 4:16
so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman

Oh, and you haven’t addressed the Temple Solomon built, that the Lord sanctified.

You really don’t think the people honored the dwelling place of the Lord, because as you say, “HE WAS PRESENT?” Who was present in Mary’s womb? Do you not believe that was God?

**Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luk 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Luk 1:45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

Luk 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.**

Protestants can’t see praying through Mary or the saints, because they say there is but ONE mediator between God and man, yet they see nothing wrong with asking another person to pray for them. Why is that mediator necessary?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis man, you’re really clueless aren’t you? That was the worse lecture I ever had and honestly, you are misinformed because you have no idea about Scripture or your own Catholic history…you make Catholics look real bad with your $2.99 mail-in cereal box theology certificate…that’s very sad…so shall we continue?
In regards to the Ark of the Covenant, They worship Yahweh because HE WAS PRESENT in the ark…big difference!
They didn’t pray “through” or “to” the ark or any cherubim, they pray “to” God who was present at the ark. It wasn’t the ark speaking, It was God speaking over the ark. It was called his Dwelling place and throne because he was Present and dwelling there!
The ark didn’t represent God like a statue represents Mary, God was actually present there! That has nothing to do with idols so your analogy was far off like your ability to comprehend anything.

No one is spiritual present in a Mary statue, especially if God didn’t command anyone in construct it.

So let me tell you a little bit about Catholic History since they don’t teach this to you in Sunday school. Are you with me so far? Most likely not but anyways…

Pope Leo in 717 forbade anyone to use icons “veneration”
In 730, Pope Leo issued an edict against icons
under new ruling, Constatine V carried the policy
In 753, a council was summoned to condemn all icons and “veneration” of them
Another Leo that assumed the throne continued the policy.
emperor Theophilus also opposed it

Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, A.D. 754 This is an official Catholic doctrine direct from the Catholic Church.

You should read it, you might learn something for your own good.

This is an official Catholic document that goes on to say that “veneration” of an object representing anything is considered “double blasphemy” and “foolish” and “assigning names to images” were evil. Furthermore, here’s what it states verbatim:

“Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers.”

“If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself”

Now, this is not talking about just “worship”…its talking about “veneration of statues and icons”…

**The funny thing is that you have no clue about your own church! You think that only protestants were against icon veneration **but The Catholic Church itself and the head of the church, the Popes (you know, the guy that is suppose to rightly lead the Church), along with the East and West Catholic churches were killing themselves over that dispute because they were struggling with this issue! The protest against veneration of icons lasted all the way until 848 in the Orthodox East, a hundred years later but iconoclast movements and the controversy were still disputed and never truly settled.
**It only started to wind down because of the countless bloodshed. But at one point, the Catholic Church got rid of all the statues and veneration of statues. (and then they went back to reinstate the use of statues because they couldn’t make up their mind. Talk about an infallible church huh?) Unfortunately this isn’t even in your Catechism book so its not a surprise that you don’t have any idea. This dark history is a hard fact that you’re going to have to accept **

I already discussed the matter with pictures. If you actually read the earlier thread you would understand before you quickly just jump into a conversation. Do you “venerate” or “bow” to your photo? Of course not, so that poor example is discounted. The argument was never about Mary or worship, it was about veneration by bowing to statues.Now you should probably stop spreading your ignorance before you continue sounding foolish!

Read Walden’s post #162. He got to his computer before I did this morning. No need to reiterate.

You’re coming from a position of complete ignorance and passing it off as historical fact. Iconoclasm is a heresy. You want to know why? Because “geniuses” like you were placing more on the icon than was warranted. You were making them into idols - which they clearly weren**'t to the Church.**
As I said before - this is typical of uneducated anti-Catholics.

As for the Ark - they CERTAINLY DID venerate it. It was considered God’s throne - but God is EVERYWHERE - or didn’t they teach you that in your Catholic-bashing Sunday school?

As for bowing down to Mary - she actually CARRIED God within her - or did you forget? Venerating an icon of Mary is not only okay - it’s appropriate because she was the Ark of the NEW Covenant. Still with me? Good.

Normally, I’m not rude in my posts but your behavior here warrants nothing less. Now, go learn some manners before you post again.:tsktsk:
A little growing up wouldn’t hurt, either . . .

Maybe you should have taken a little more time studying your history and a little less time hating the Catholic Church.

 

[elvisman]

You mean EMPEROR Leo III?? Byzantine Emperor?? Leo III Isaurian? No such thing as Pope Leo in 717. The Pope during the Iconoclastic heresy was Pope St. Gregory II. In fact, Pope Gregory EXCOMMUNICATED Emperor Leo precisely because of what you are espousing. (by the way, Leo responded by threatening to imprison Gregory) The papacy and the Western Church held fast against Iconoclasm, which, ironically had crept into the Eastern Church because of the Muslims. Very sad business.

Google is your friend. I suggest you check whatever materials you are using.

Constantine the Fifth??? Who is that? Certainly not a pope. Oh, he was Leo III’s son who carried on his father’s persecutions.

History, my friend, is most definitely NOT something you should appeal to in this argument.

Thanks for getting to this before I had time to this morning, my friend.
Great post!

History is CERTAINLY not Hercules253’ friend!
Constantine V, indeed . . .

 

[Daedelus76]

I think Protestantism threw out alot of things that actually aren’t against the Bible and Tradition. They had problems with the papacy, but so did the Eastern Orthodox, yet the Orthodox after the Schism retained alot of the practices of the Church.

Anglicanism is unique in being a “Protestant” denomination that also has a wing of the church that has those who retain alot of catholic and orthodox practices, including belief in the Communion of Saints. Asking a saint to pray for us is not required, but neither do I see how it could be inherently bad. Intercession of the saints is sometimes done during the collects, it just depends on the particular parish and the sentiments there- at one parish I have been to, saints are only part of the collects on special days or special services (the more “catholic” services like Good Friday), in another parish this is done at every service (the Blessed Virgin Mary is invoked).

The minimalist religious approach, however, was more part of Calvanism- if it’s not in the Bible, it’s forbidden. This mentality swept through alot of Protestantism, especially in the US. Luther himself wasn’t against intercession of saints in theory, but he downplayed it in practice due to the nature of his personal spirituality.

One can make an idol of religious images, but idols aren’t exclusive to images. There’s difference between having a statue or an icon as a visual representation of the faith, and viewing a saint as a “cosmic vending machine”, a substitute for faith in God, which is really where the idolatry starts. In some predominantly Catholic countries you do see people using saints in pagan ways (I forgot the exact author, but one Mexican author says Mexicans don’t have faith in anything anymore except the lottery and the Virgin of Guadalupe), and there are controversies there about them (and I’ve read about Catholic bishops even denouncing some of these), but it doesn’t follow that a saint=paganism.

 

[Walden]

Thanks for getting to this before I had time to this morning, my friend.
Great post!

History is CERTAINLY not Hercules253’ friend!
Constantine V, indeed . . .

I couldn’t let it sit. I had to address the “history” lesson. (And I stay up too late).

Carry on!

 

[Lizziebel]

I have seen it with my own eyes, you have seen pictures of it. When you walk into a church and there are statues with kneelers in front ot the statues. Why is it that many chose to go to the statue to pray and kneel in front of it. You have seen processions where people rush to touch the statue and parade around with it, kneel before it.

Actually, I haven’t seen any of these things. None of the parishes I’ve been to even have kneelers in front of statues. But again, such prayer isn’t to any statue. Also, as others have said, respect and honor is vastly different from worship.

 

[rinnie]

I have seen it with my own eyes, you have seen pictures of it. When you walk into a church and there are statues with kneelers in front ot the statues. Why is it that many chose to go to the statue to pray and kneel in front of it. You have seen processions where people rush to touch the statue and parade around with it, kneel before it.

Kinda sounds like the words of the bible huh. ALL nations will call be Blessed. Looks like everyone is giving her praise and honor just like the bible said they would!

 

[Ruthie]

That was the worse lecture I ever had and honestly, you are misinformed because you have no idea about Scripture or your own Catholic history…you make Catholics look real bad with your $2.99 mail-in cereal box theology certificate…that’s very sad

Now, there’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black - except that Elvisman has a much better grasp of things than Hercules.

Hmm. “Hercules.” A pagan idol!

Those who take the Bible, chop it up into verses and pieces of verses, and then define their theology by the bits they like, are foolish. First, they turn the Bible into a big jigsaw puzzle with thousands, if not millions, of pieces. Then they take a few pieces and try to make a picture out of them, when they should be trying to put all the pieces together.

Hercules tries to make a big deal about venerating symbols. As I said before, the Bible is made up of symbols, just like this page is. Letters are symbols that represent sounds.

I venerate my Bible, because it is the Word of God. I try not to put my teacup down on it, or drop it on the floor. If it didn’t already have a good cover on it, I’d probably buy or make it a special cover. I treat it differently than other books I use. Bad me - I’m venerating symbols!

Hercules, I think it’s time for you to fold up your tents and steal away. Leave this forum to those who have a better grasp of the difference between history and propaganda, between symbols and idols, between veneration and worship, and between appearances and reality.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

OK so you say a Mary statue is not an idol because idols are worshiped?..But its still considered an image and God distintively mentions both an image and an idol as in the following:

Leviticus 26:1
Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

But even though you say its not considered an idol its still an image and that doesn’t change the fact that you are still not allowed to bow to any image!! How much more clear is God suppose to be? The context is clear as crystal for us to understand and God is not the author of confusion.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath… Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4,5; Deut. 5:8,9)

Once again, even though you say its not worshipping, you’re still not allowed to bow to an image wether its for worship or not!
Bowing down and getting on your knees is an act of worship and a statue of Mary is still an image and likeness. The terminology is not the issue. Whether the practice is described as “worship” or “veneration,” “idol” or “image” or any other term, the problem is the same. The Bible no where instructs us to kneel or bow before anyone or revere anyone how much more a statue and image alone.

If Peter, the Rock of the Catholic Church, rejects his own reverence then why do you think its permissable to revere Mary or much yet, a statue of Mary?

ACTS 10:25
25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

You can try to justify that by saying its because Mary is sinless and the Mother of God. Yet, she was still human like Peter. Peter says “dont bow down to me and do not revere me for I am just a man” and we know that Mary was a woman because Jesus calls her that (John 2:4, Rev 12:1). She deserves honor but not the honor of bowing especially to her statue or image.

Pope Gregory III condemned the use of images. Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years, condemned the use of images of Christ as heretical because only Christ’s human nature could be depicted. A church council which met near Chalcedon on February 10, 753 (and lasted seven months), condemned the use of images in worship as being “idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil.”* ( Philip E. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 167. ) *

So much for the idea the unchanging church! What happened to the Catholic Church now???

You’re really straining the meaning and context a little too hard by being excessively technical and reading too much into the lines as most Catholics do to get around this typical scenario when its deliberately clear that we are not to bow down or venerate a statue or image (whether its for worship or not)

If you want Mary to pray for you, then close your eyes and ask for it but NOT kneeling and bowing in front of a statue.

If you want to honor Mary, then honor her but NOT by sending a image or statue flowers, candles and incense

Honor her by listening to her son’s Words and God’s commandments especially against images and statues!

No idolater ever created living & human flesh for a god - that was left for God to do, for His Son.​

The Incarnation of God the Word is what makes images allowable to us. It’s a Divine act, & if it’s against the Bible, God ought to know.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The three Hebrew boys refused to bow down before a statue of Nebechanezzer at the risk of their own lives. They could have very easily knelt there and in silence say I am not worshipping this statue but they refused.

Of course - to appear to commit idolatry as a means to avoid it, is wicked. Catholics are not doing that. They are adoring the One True God, by honouring His servants whom He has approved & made honourable by His works in & through them.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Elvis man, you’re really clueless aren’t you? That was the worse lecture I ever had and honestly, you are misinformed because you have no idea about Scripture or your own Catholic history…you make Catholics look real bad with your $2.99 mail-in cereal box theology certificate…that’s very sad…so shall we continue?

Moses made a bronze snake for people to cure their snake bites. Did any veneration take place? No.
When they made the Ark of the Covenant…did any veneration take place? Once again No!

In regards to the Ark of the Covenant, They worship Yahweh because HE WAS PRESENT in the ark…big difference!
They didn’t pray “through” or “to” the ark or any cherubim, they pray “to” God who was present at the ark. It wasn’t the ark speaking, It was God speaking over the ark. It was called his Dwelling place and throne because he was Present and dwelling there!
The ark didn’t represent God like a statue represents Mary, God was actually present there! That has nothing to do with idols so your analogy was far off like your ability to comprehend anything.

No one is spiritual present in a Mary statue, especially if God didn’t command anyone in construct it.

So let me tell you a little bit about Catholic History since they don’t teach this to you in Sunday school. Are you with me so far? Most likely not but anyways…

Pope Leo in 717 forbade anyone to use icons “veneration”
In 730, Pope Leo issued an edict against icons
under new ruling, Constatine V carried the policy

That’s why Constantine V is not well-remembered by the Orthodox - but they do remember & venerate St. Stephen the Iconodule, who was martyred for upholding the rightness of honouring the holy images. Just as they venerate St. John of Damascus & St. Theodore of Studion & other iconodule Saints And so they should ​

In 753, a council was summoned to condemn all icons and “veneration” of them
Another Leo that assumed the throne continued the policy.

Which was later rejected, when the true doctrine was set forth at Nicea II​

emperor Theophilus also opposed it

Since he was a heretic, is that surprising ?​

Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, A.D. 754 This is an official Catholic doctrine direct from the Catholic Church.

It is nothing of the kind - it has as much authority as the synods of the Arians: none. “Conciliabulum” is a term of derision, because it is a pseudo-Council.​

You should read it, you might learn something for your own good.

This is an official Catholic document

Heretics are not Catholics​

that goes on to say that “veneration” of an object representing anything is considered “double blasphemy” and “foolish” and “assigning names to images” were evil. Furthermore, here’s what it states verbatim:

“Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers.”

“If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself”

Now, this is not talking about just “worship”…its talking about “veneration of statues and icons”…

**The funny thing is that you have no clue about your own church! You think that only protestants were against icon veneration **but The Catholic Church itself and the head of the church, the Popes (you know, the guy that is suppose to rightly lead the Church), along with the East and West Catholic churches were killing themselves over that dispute because they were struggling with this issue! The protest against veneration of icons lasted all the way until 848 in the Orthodox East, a hundred years later but iconoclast movements and the controversy were still disputed and never truly settled.
**It only started to wind down because of the countless bloodshed. But at one point, the Catholic Church got rid of all the statues and veneration of statues. (and then they went back to reinstate the use of statues because they couldn’t make up their mind. Talk about an infallible church huh?) Unfortunately this isn’t even in your Catechism book so its not a surprise that you don’t have any idea. This dark history is a hard fact that you’re going to have to accept **

I already discussed the matter with pictures. If you actually read the earlier thread you would understand before you quickly just jump into a conversation. Do you “venerate” or “bow” to your photo? Of course not, so that poor example is discounted. The argument was never about Mary or worship, it was about veneration by bowing to statues.Now you should probably stop spreading your ignorance before you continue sounding foolish!

 

[LutheranDK]

Come on Luther, we all know you`re a Catholic in spirit and a Lutheran in flesh

That is not the first time I’ve been accused of crypto-catholicism - but I’m too bad a swimmer to attempt to swim another river

 

[LutheranDK]

wow, you sound more like a Christian then a protestant:thumbsup:

I hope that wasn’t meant the way it sounded?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mary suffered way more then you, you`re eyes are just closed to see that. I am really sorry for your loss but you are nobody to say such a thing. I am highly offended at your statement, how could you possibly compare yourself to the Virgin Mary sufferings!

He didn’t. The BVM suffered, & other human beings suffer - that is the extent of the “comparison”.​

**YOU CANT** You see, we all have to suffer but in the end, there is always a mysterious reason behind it. Suffering is part of life because sin has entered the world. But Jesus Christ suffered to free us from sin. When a mother gives birth to a son and he grows up, and he chooses to walk in the right path and starts abusing people, curses his own relatives, uses drugs, lies cheats and steals, and all of a sudden if his mother happenes to witness his death, are you really going to tell me shes going to suffer as much as a mother who lost a son who was the exact opposite? No shes not, no matter how much she loves her evil son, you can not compare the sufferings of them two. This is why its always a tradgedy to see if a child dies, because they are usually pure and innocent.

So when The Blessed Mary saw Her Son (who by the way was the REDEEMER OF THE WORLD) being crucified, the pain She had to endure was like no other! She knew Jesus was the Massiah, She knew He came to SAVE the world but in return the world pinned Him to the cross! Now youre innocent child had to suffer and Im sorry, but he was an innocent child only because he didnt have the chance to sin. Jesus didn´t only have the chance to sin, but he free-willingy humbled HIMSELF to be among us! Jesus did so much for us, but yet all he got in return was being hung up high on the cross for His own Mother to witness it. so please, you have no idea what youre talking about. No creation suffered as much as Gods OWN Mother.

may God forgive you for saying such a horrible thing.

That is so insensitive ​

As for the BVM’s sufferings, that is purely speculation. Simeon’s words don’t prove she suffered as deeply as that - only that she did suffer. It’s far from clear how much Mary did know about Jesus - the Gospel certainly doesn’t support the idea that she had altogether realised who He was. If she wasn’t very largely “in the dark”, she would have hafsd no need of faith. Exaggerating her graces & privileges only succeeds in making her completely inhuman - into something not human, & not God: into a sort of incarnate super-seraph playing at being a woman. (which is exactly what some writers, to judge from their words, seem to have thought

To say her sufferings were that enormous, risks coming close to the point at which she loses all contact with human beings, & becomes inhumanly perfect - so she ceases to be an example for far from perfect human beings. That is surely not what people intend, but it’s a result of unbridled exaggeration of what can be inferred about her.