SDA Theologian on the Cross

[SDA2RC]

From Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Comments?

The entire letter can be viewed at biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_122.htm

Historically our Seventh-day Adventist Church has avoided the use of the Cross in church buildings and schools. Adventist churches with a tower or a spire usually have a lightening rod on the top, not a Cross. The reason for objecting to the use of the Cross, is the temptation for some Christians, especially devout Catholic, to treat the Cross as a sacred object by which to worship Christ.

        When our first Seventh-Day Adventist Church was inaugurated in Rome, Italy (near St. Peter), on the top of the iron gate of the church there was a Cross.  Among the people waiting for the bus in front of the gate, there were always some devout Catholics, who looked at the Cross, and instinctively made the sign of the Cross and recited an* Ave Maria*  or Lord's Prayer.  For them, the Cross, even on the top of an iron gate was a sacred object by which to worship Christ.

        In view of the problems caused by the iron Cross, our church leaders decided to remove the Cross from the gate. ** It is this concern over the idolatrous use of the Cross,** that has led our Adventist Church to discourage the use of the Cross outside or inside our churches. The situation has changed in recent times, especially in predominant Protestant countries, where the Cross is seen as the symbol of Christ's sacrificial death, not as a sacred object of worship.

snip<
The problem is that the plain Cross, used initially as the symbol of the Christian faith, gradually became a Crucifix with the contorted body of Jesus, used as an object of worship. The idolatrous use of the Crucifix is still predominant in Catholic countries. This explains why Adventists in dominant Catholic countries generally avoid altogether the use of the Cross in their churches. They know that the presence of a Cross in an Adventist church will tempt Catholic visitors to kneel before the Cross and worship Christ by means of the Cross.

       ** The perverted use of the Cross as an object of worship in the Catholic Church**, should not be a reason for Adventists to object to the use of the Cross, as the symbol of Christ's sacrificial death for our redemption.

snip<

       ** In Catholic countries where the Cross and the Crucifix serve as object of worship,** it may be wise for our churches not to display the Cross in a prominent place. The reason is pastoral, not theological. We want to help new believers to make the transition from the visible worship of Christ by means of icons and Crosses, to the invisible worship of the Lord in Spirit and Truth.

snip<

        In talking about the movie with a United Airline ticket agent, the lady told me: "After viewing Gibson's movie, the lingering question in my mind is, 'Why Christ had to be brutally tortured unto death to save us from sin?"  **I reassured her that the notion of salvation through the intensity of Christ's suffering is a Catholic heresy. ** In the Bible we are saved by Christ's sacrificial death, not by the intensity of Christ's sufferings.

Snip<

 

[Deacon2006]

To suggest that the church teaches that a cruxifix is to be worshiped is at its heart a bigoted lie. If Jesus is the the truth why do you need to lie to get your point accross? Every moderately intelligent person of good will can easily find out what the Church teaches about worship and whom worship is reserved for. It takes a deep seated level of ignorance to make this claim in the 2004.

God Bless

 

[jeffreedy789]

i’m not sure what the view of sda2rc is. what are you saying? are you asking what we think of this view? is this your view? do you want to know what the church teaches about the cross?

 

[SDA2RC]

Deacon2006:

To suggest that the church teaches that a cruxifix is to be worshiped is at its heart a bigoted lie. If Jesus is the the truth why do you need to lie to get your point accross? Every moderately intelligent person of good will can easily find out what the Church teaches about worship and whom worship is reserved for. It takes a deep seated level of ignorance to make this claim in the 2004.

God Bless

I agree… I couldnt believe what I was reading. I was basically looking to see if I was over reacting! I cannot believe that he does not know the actual teachings of the Church on this issue: From part of his biography, posted at his website.

"In 1969 Dr. Bacchiocchi returned to his native city of Rome to study at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, where he was the first non-Catholic to be admitted in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of *summa cum laude *for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. "

I have been receiving his NewsLetters for a couple of years now… I wish I could figure out an effect way to respond to him

Brandon

 

[SDA2RC]

jeffreedy789:

i’m not sure what the view of sda2rc is. what are you saying? are you asking what we think of this view? is this your view? do you want to know what the church teaches about the cross?

As I put in the original post, I just wanted to get your comments. My reaction to this was that it was a deliberate deception… but having been to this man’s seminars and having a negative view of his character personally… I was wondering if I was over reacting. LOL

brandon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Comments?

The entire letter can be viewed at biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_122.htm

GIGANTIC snip<

In talking about the movie with a United Airline ticket agent, the lady told me: “After viewing Gibson’s movie, the lingering question in my mind is, 'Why Christ had to be brutally tortured unto death to save us from sin?” **I reassured her that the notion of salvation through the intensity of Christ’s suffering is a Catholic heresy. **In the Bible we are saved by Christ’s sacrificial death, not by the intensity of Christ’s sufferings.

Snip<

“In the Bible we are saved by Christ’s sacrificial death, not by the intensity of Christ’s sufferings.”​

That bit, is accurate - the Passion of Christ was powerful in its effects, not because of the pain suffered, but because of the good done. His Death was the fullest expression of His Love - even though he might in principle have died even more painfully. The severity of His sufferings are not what make them valuable; the Love expressed in His self-giving obedience, is what does that. His bodily sufferings could always have been worse than they were.

Otherwise, one would have to say that Our Lord did not obey His Father, or love us, as much as He might have, because He did not suffer as painfully as He might have, had he “managed things” so as to be flayed alive, or to die by a combination of being crucified and being burned (as some of the martyrs in Rome under Nero were).

The criminals crucified with him, had their legs shattered. He was spared that - their sufferings, does not make them our redeemers. Suffering is not what makes the martyr: the reason for suffering does that. Neither is Christ the King of Martyrs because the intensity of His sufferings, but, by His motive in suffering. He gives a new meaning to that, as to everything else.

His sufferings do indeed commend His Love to us - but, his bodily pain does not have to be more atrocious than that of anyone else for His Death to be uniquely valuable.

As His death was that of a Divine Person, & not of a mere man, however holy, His abandonment by the Father was presumably a far worse suffering than any bodily pain. That suffering, was peculiar to Him, because He knew the Father as no one else possibly could. But that kind of pain cannot be shown on film. ##

 

[Marsha_Adams]

**From ** In talking about the movie with a United Airline ticket agent, the lady told me: “After viewing Gibson’s movie, the lingering question in my mind is, 'Why Christ had to be brutally tortured unto death to save us from sin?” **I reassured her that the notion of salvation through the intensity of Christ’s suffering is a Catholic heresy. ****** In the Bible we are saved by Christ’s sacrificial death, not by the intensity of Christ’s sufferings.

Snip<

 

[Ignatius2000]

(snippy)

When our first Seventh-Day Adventist Church was inaugurated in Rome, Italy (near St. Peter), on the top of the iron gate of the church there was a Cross. Among the people waiting for the bus in front of the gate, there were always some devout Catholics, who looked at the Cross, and instinctively made the sign of the Cross and recited an* Ave Maria* or Lord’s Prayer. For them, the Cross, even on the top of an iron gate was a sacred object by which to worship Christ.

Yes, an observation of devout Catholics who make the sign of the Cross when passing a church. It is truly wonderful that this practice has not gone unnoticed. Yet this statement is a passing on of a mis-observation of sorts. Catholics in Italy making the sign of the Cross when they pass in front of a church is not worship of the Cross that sits atop the bell tower, but rather a sign of respect for the Prisoner of the Tabernacle held within the church. Granted, the building in question was not a Catholic church, but in Italy the number of Catholic churches is certainly much higher than SDA churches? It becomes a reflex when passing in front of a church, and in Italy, a safe assumption would be that the great majority of churches passed on the street are Catholic.

 

[VociMike]

He can’t even get it straight what the problem is. In one place he talks about worshipping Christ through the cross, and in another place he talks about the cross as the object of worship.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

From my experience, Seventh-Day Adventistism is obsessed with talking about one of three things:

Why they worship on Saturday.
Why Catholicism is evil.
The end of the world is coming.

Since the publication of the Catechism, one has to wonder where some of this stuff comes from. To assert something of such a Chickean nature when the Church’s true teachings are available at any bookstore is the height of intellectual laziness.

 

[Contarini]

To suggest that the church teaches that a cruxifix is to be worshiped is at its heart a bigoted lie.

That is not what he said. He said that Catholics use the crucifix as a means to worship Christ. He considers this idolatry.

Catholics need to deal with the fact that some Protestants consider Catholic worship idolatry because of their definition of idolatry, not because they misunderstand what Catholics are doing.

Another example would be J. I. Packer’s discussion of the crucifix in *Knowing God *(though I’m not sure Packer would still take such a hardline position). He seems to understand quite well why traditional Christians use the crucifix, and he thinks it is wrong.

There are real theological issues here about the nature of worship, sacramentality, etc. It can’t all be boiled down to misunderstanding (though obviously there is a lot of misunderstanding flying around as well).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

He can’t even get it straight what the problem is. In one place he talks about worshipping Christ through the cross, and in another place he talks about the cross as the object of worship.

I don’t think it’s a contradiction. I think that in his theology the two things are the same. For him, using a material object as a means by which to worship Christ is tantamount to worshipping the object.

Edwin

 

[adventistnomore]

The cross, apparently is still a “stumbling block.”

 

[MarysRoses]

That is not what he said. He said that Catholics use the crucifix as a means to worship Christ. He considers this idolatry.
**
Catholics need to deal with the fact that some Protestants consider Catholic worship idolatry because of their definition of idolatry, not because they misunderstand what Catholics are doing.
**
Another example would be J. I. Packer’s discussion of the crucifix in *Knowing God *(though I’m not sure Packer would still take such a hardline position). He seems to understand quite well why traditional Christians use the crucifix, and he thinks it is wrong.

There are real theological issues here about the nature of worship, sacramentality, etc. It can’t all be boiled down to misunderstanding (though obviously there is a lot of misunderstanding flying around as well).

Edwin

I agree with you, its THEIR definition of idolatry. One we do not share. Protestants also need to ‘deal’ with that. We do not worship objects. If someone wants to define ‘bowing’ (or whatever action they want to define) to something as worship, thats their prerogative. I would wonder though, at their seeming ‘worship’ of their rose bushes, next time they need a bit of weeding.

MarysRoses

 

[St_Violet]

A Cross is much more then an object, when I see a cross, what comes to mind is, Christ, salvation, mercy, sacrifice, Forgivness, etc…, this is what a cross represents. When I wear my rosary, I do not wear it for “extra protection” , I wear it to remind me of the cross, to remind me GOD is with me, I wear it to remind me to keep holding my faith when I’m in a hole. When I am in a Hole my rosary or a cross reminds me that Christ suffered much worse.

some catholics even challenge the fact I wear a rosary, Alot of people do not understand my culture is based on Catholicism.

I always felt that these “objects” helps me have more focus when I’m praying.

This subject is beginning to make me believe that there are some christians out there who are ashamed of the Cross.

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you, its THEIR definition of idolatry. One we do not share. Protestants also need to ‘deal’ with that. We do not worship objects. If someone wants to define ‘bowing’ (or whatever action they want to define) to something as worship, thats their prerogative. I would wonder though, at their seeming ‘worship’ of their rose bushes, next time they need a bit of weeding.

MarysRoses

I’m sorry, but that kind of argument really makes Catholicism look ridiculous. We all know quite well that some kind of religious veneration is being paid to the reality symbolized by a statue. We know that nothing like that is happening with rose bushes.

Taking off your hat when the flag goes by–that’s a relevant example. I believe that this is far more likely to be idolatry than any honor Catholics pay to images of the saints.

Edwin

 

[Ceil-1]

The devil also hates images of Christ, the Crucifix, holy icons and any religious symbols.

Looking at a holy symbol of any sort automatically lifts the heart and mind to God and heavenly things, and that is a form of prayer.

I have noticed that people with an iconoclastic attitude do not strike me as filled with the Holy Spirit. They are usually the OSAS types who presume on their salvation. These images make them uncomfortable, even spur them on to anger. This speaks volumes to me.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have been receiving his NewsLetters for a couple of years now… I wish I could figure out an effect way to respond to him

Maybe cite him CCC#2132:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.Otherwise, if he has studied Catholicism for as long as he has, it could be a self-imposed blindness and the cause may need to be entrusted to God’s hands by your prayer.

 

[mark_a]

Maybe cite him CCC#2132:Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.Otherwise, if he has studied Catholicism for as long as he has, it could be a self-imposed blindness and the cause may need to be entrusted to God’s hands by your prayer.

Now why did you have to quote the official Catholic teaching?