P
Petergee
Guest
Actually the period from c. 1400 to 1600 is called the Renaissance. The “Enlightenment” period was circa 1600 to 1800.
- Status
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Hey what about the Restoration? The Baroque? The Rococco? And don’t forget the Neo-Augustan, Federal, Romantic and Empire periods!
I thought Dante and Petrarca lived during the Italian Renaissance?? In the 13th and 14th centuries??
P
Petergee
Guest
I was trying to keep it simple. Yes the Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th century (and arguably as early as Dante) and slowly spread north, not reaching Britain until the 16th century.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
I know, Petergee, I was having fun. But if I remember: wasn’t the Enlightenment a later term applied by Anglo-American protestant historians to the late 18th century (to counter the Catholic counter-reformation)?
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Not so much teach but the doctrines and dogmas declared as Truth since then. I’ll pull up the list and post it.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Here’s my list of disagreements that happened after 800 A.D. (approximately):
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized
This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.
Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Ex. 20:4; 3:17; Deut. 27:15; Psalm 115). 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom. 1:7; I Col. 1:2). 995
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII
Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read I Tim. 3:2,5, and 12; Matt. 8:14-15). 1079
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.
Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year1215
Why did it take the CC so long to define it???
By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26). 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psa. 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; I John 1:8-9). 1215
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed
The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (Read Matt. 28: 19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18). 1545
The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psa. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility
This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the anti-christ predicted by St. Paul. (Read II Thess. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).
Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope’s title: “VICARIVS FILII DEI.” – V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l – Total, 666. 1870
Why did it take so long for the CC to define papal infallibilty?
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized
This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.
Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Ex. 20:4; 3:17; Deut. 27:15; Psalm 115). 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom. 1:7; I Col. 1:2). 995
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII
Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read I Tim. 3:2,5, and 12; Matt. 8:14-15). 1079
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.
Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year1215
Why did it take the CC so long to define it???
By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26). 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psa. 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; I John 1:8-9). 1215
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed
The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (Read Matt. 28: 19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18). 1545
The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psa. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility
This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the anti-christ predicted by St. Paul. (Read II Thess. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).
Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope’s title: “VICARIVS FILII DEI.” – V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l – Total, 666. 1870
Why did it take so long for the CC to define papal infallibilty?
R
RNRobert
Guest
Blue Serenity,
It seems like you simply cut and pasted from Lorraine Boettner’s anti-catholic Screed *Roman Catholicism.*However, I will answer some of these questions, and I’m sure my fellow Catholics will pick up the rest.
Regarding the crucifix, religious art and “idolatry,” we see in Exodus 25, that God commanded the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant with two cherubim on top. Later, in Numbers 21, after God had sent the poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites for grumbling, the Lord commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent and mount it on a pole, and
those who looked at the serpent were healed. In the building of the temple, the large bowl for purifying water was held up by bronze bulls. Was God contradicting himself when he gave these instructions? No, there is a clear difference between art used for religious purposes, and worshipping them as a god.
Holy Water: We see in the Old Testament that the priests and Levites would purify themselves with water before entering the Holy of Holies. Similarly, we use Holy water when we enter the Church to remind ourselves of the purity we received in Baptism.
The Mass: It is not a “re-sacrificing” of Christ, but a re-presentation of the once-and-for-all sacrifice that Christ made at Calvary. read 1 Cor 11 again. St Paul says that those who partake unworthily “eat and drink damnation” which is why many Corinthian Christians were sick or dead. If the Lord’s Supper is only a symbol, how can that be? To give an example, if I tear up a picture of Pres. Bush, can I be arrested for harming the President? NO! Also, read John 6. Jesus told the Jews THREE TIMES that they had no life unless they ATE HIS FLESH and DRANK HIS BLOOD. The Jews considered this “a hard saying,” and walked off. If this was nothing more than a symbol, why didn’t He say so?
Priestly celibacy: Jesus said that some men are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men, and others become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, and let those who can accept it (Matt 19:12). Jesus himself was never married, and St Paul recommended celibay so one could serve the Lord better. While a number of leaders in the early church were married, it was decided that unmarried priests would better be able to serve the Kingdom of God. Also, while the Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) allow for married priests, their bishops are generally unmarried.
The Inquisition: The iniquisition was never about spreading the faith by use of force, but by protecting it from those who would corrupt it (read what Jesus, Paul, John, and Jude said about false teachers). In the middle ages, there was a group called the Albigensians, who believed in a “bad god” of the OT, and a “good god” of the NT. They thought marriage and having children was a sin, taught that fornication was ok, and considered ritual suicide (by starvation a virtue). These teachings threatened to destroy the very fabric of society, which is why the church and state came down hard on them.
Indulgences are NOT an “indulgence to commit sin.” A couple years ago I started a thread on explaining indulgences. Check it out below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22727&highlight=indulgences
Confession: James 5:16 advises us to “confess our sins to one another.” How many Protestants follow that advice? We see in the Gospels that Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles to “bind and loose” and that who sins they forgive are forgiven, who sins they retain are retained.
Tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us “to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam, where Mohammed wrote a book and said “read and heed.” Jesus taught by word of mouth, and so did his Apostles. When they wrote, it was to people who had ALREADY BEEN TAUGHT THE FAITH. The writers of the NT did not in intend to write an exhaustive catechism, with sections where you could look up “baptism” under B or under M for “Mary.”
The Papacy: The Pope call himself the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of the Son of God, so that whole 666 thing is bogus.
continued…
It seems like you simply cut and pasted from Lorraine Boettner’s anti-catholic Screed *Roman Catholicism.*However, I will answer some of these questions, and I’m sure my fellow Catholics will pick up the rest.
Regarding the crucifix, religious art and “idolatry,” we see in Exodus 25, that God commanded the Israelites to make the Ark of the Covenant with two cherubim on top. Later, in Numbers 21, after God had sent the poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites for grumbling, the Lord commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent and mount it on a pole, and
those who looked at the serpent were healed. In the building of the temple, the large bowl for purifying water was held up by bronze bulls. Was God contradicting himself when he gave these instructions? No, there is a clear difference between art used for religious purposes, and worshipping them as a god.
Holy Water: We see in the Old Testament that the priests and Levites would purify themselves with water before entering the Holy of Holies. Similarly, we use Holy water when we enter the Church to remind ourselves of the purity we received in Baptism.
The Mass: It is not a “re-sacrificing” of Christ, but a re-presentation of the once-and-for-all sacrifice that Christ made at Calvary. read 1 Cor 11 again. St Paul says that those who partake unworthily “eat and drink damnation” which is why many Corinthian Christians were sick or dead. If the Lord’s Supper is only a symbol, how can that be? To give an example, if I tear up a picture of Pres. Bush, can I be arrested for harming the President? NO! Also, read John 6. Jesus told the Jews THREE TIMES that they had no life unless they ATE HIS FLESH and DRANK HIS BLOOD. The Jews considered this “a hard saying,” and walked off. If this was nothing more than a symbol, why didn’t He say so?
Priestly celibacy: Jesus said that some men are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men, and others become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, and let those who can accept it (Matt 19:12). Jesus himself was never married, and St Paul recommended celibay so one could serve the Lord better. While a number of leaders in the early church were married, it was decided that unmarried priests would better be able to serve the Kingdom of God. Also, while the Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) allow for married priests, their bishops are generally unmarried.
The Inquisition: The iniquisition was never about spreading the faith by use of force, but by protecting it from those who would corrupt it (read what Jesus, Paul, John, and Jude said about false teachers). In the middle ages, there was a group called the Albigensians, who believed in a “bad god” of the OT, and a “good god” of the NT. They thought marriage and having children was a sin, taught that fornication was ok, and considered ritual suicide (by starvation a virtue). These teachings threatened to destroy the very fabric of society, which is why the church and state came down hard on them.
Indulgences are NOT an “indulgence to commit sin.” A couple years ago I started a thread on explaining indulgences. Check it out below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22727&highlight=indulgences
Confession: James 5:16 advises us to “confess our sins to one another.” How many Protestants follow that advice? We see in the Gospels that Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles to “bind and loose” and that who sins they forgive are forgiven, who sins they retain are retained.
Tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us “to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam, where Mohammed wrote a book and said “read and heed.” Jesus taught by word of mouth, and so did his Apostles. When they wrote, it was to people who had ALREADY BEEN TAUGHT THE FAITH. The writers of the NT did not in intend to write an exhaustive catechism, with sections where you could look up “baptism” under B or under M for “Mary.”
The Papacy: The Pope call himself the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of the Son of God, so that whole 666 thing is bogus.
continued…
R
RNRobert
Guest
As for why it took so long for the church to declare such and such a doctrine, it’s because there’s usually no need to until there is a question about it, or somebody challenges it. For instance, most Protestants believe in the Trinity, but that doctrine wasn’t declared until the third century, when a man named Arius denied Jesus divinity. They also believe that he was fully man and fully God, but it took 6 or 7 centuries to develop.
Many Protestants have the false notion that the Church shouldn’t develop, that the Catholic Church isn’t the true church because she doesn’t look EXACTLY like the church of the 1st century. This is alot like disapproving of an oak tree because it doesn’t resemble an acorn. The church never sways from the Apostolic deposit of faith, but that deposit needs a living interpreter to apply the truths to new challenges to the faith, and yes, sometimes it can take centuries for the implications of Apostolic teaching to develop.
Many Protestants have the false notion that the Church shouldn’t develop, that the Catholic Church isn’t the true church because she doesn’t look EXACTLY like the church of the 1st century. This is alot like disapproving of an oak tree because it doesn’t resemble an acorn. The church never sways from the Apostolic deposit of faith, but that deposit needs a living interpreter to apply the truths to new challenges to the faith, and yes, sometimes it can take centuries for the implications of Apostolic teaching to develop.
M
MariaG
Guest
So which powers would have Christ given the apostles that you claim died with them, never to be given to others?
M
MariaG
Guest
And I say that the Catholic interpretation does not contradict scripture at all either.Hi ,
It may contradict ECF writings but it does not contradict Scripture at all.
While I do believe you when you say that you think your interpretation of Scripture does not contradict scripture, Catholics as well as other Protestant denominations would completely disagree with you.
So basically what you are choosing to do is to trust the INTERPRETATION of scripture by a man 1500 years after the fact rather than trust the interpretation of scripture of the Catholic Church that is consistent with the interpretation of men who were taught by the apostles, like Ignatious of Antioch.
How do you justify using an interpretation that has “come along” when scripture warns us this will happen and not to be fooled by those who will twist scripture to their own peril?
When you choose to believe the interpretation of someone like Calvin over the ECF how do you convince yourself that those who wrote on scripture in 300AD are the ones who have “come along” rather believe that John Calvin “came along” when he was not even alive until 1500 years after the fact?
I don’t understand how you can be so complacent and even happy about the fact that your interpretation contradicts 1500 years of Christian interpretation.
M
MariaG
Guest
:bible1: Matthew 16:17-19
17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
When one understands the historical signigicance of giving someone the keys, it is easier to understand. The Lord of the Castle would always carry the keys when home. But when he went away for extended periods, he would give the keys to the steward. In this way the steward was left “in charge” of the castle. Everyone understood that the Lord of the Castle was still the head of the Castle, but they had to obey the steward whom the Lord left in charge while he was absent.
There is an old testament reference to this also. I don’t have the exact reference but can find it you need biblical proof of this understanding of the keys.
And then the ECF who wrote on this also.
The writings of the ECF also speak of Peter who was “head of the choir of apostles” and other such statements. So your interpretation is not consistent with scripture or the understanding of the early church
ALLFORHIM;1869511:
Again, I say the same so whose interpretation should a person trust, one that is consistent with the Christian church 500 years ago or one that is consistent with the interpretation of the Christian Church 1500 years ago? Whose interpretation “came along”?My intrepretation is consistent with Scripture.
God Bless,
Maria
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
I actually have not taken anyone’s intrepretation. I only started to study the bible 3 years ago. I had never read anything protestant or catholic or ECF or Calvin or Luther. When I was growing up I did learn all the bible stories that we all learn, Noah, Moses–all the stories a little kid would learn.
The only message I had heard prior to my salvation was the salvation message taught to me(or as I refer to it–shoved down my throat, because I was a teen at the time)by my brother and sister. They taught me about Christ’s work on the cross. All of the knowledge I have now has come from me studying the individual books of the bible. Plus what I have learned in the last year being here:thumbsup: I had no outside influence. As a matter of fact, when I became saved it took me a good 8 or 9 years before I started to even understand any of the intracacies of the christian faith. I have such a hunger and thirst for learning Go’ds Word and I KNOW that has come from the HS driving me to the truth. There are many things in the bible I will never have an intellectual understanding of but I have a childlike faith and believe. There are many things I have not studied yet(like end times)so I dont take anyones word for it. I will research the bible and ask the HS for discernment as to what other people tell me. It is dangerous to trust a mere man whether they are the ECF, Pope, priest, minister, Calvin, Luth, anyone on here etc.
Many many times I have been told something here and I go and study it and search for it biblically. If the bible agrees I dont have a problem if what is told me doesnt line up with the bible I cant take it as truth.
IMHO this is what we should all do. I believe the HS gives you a sign, like a feeling, like in the pit of your stomach, that what you just heard isnt quite right. The HS is telling you to go to the Scriptures and check it out.
Those are my beliefs and Im stickin to em
J
jmcrae
Guest
We all have outside influences. It’s only by recognizing what our outside influences are causing us to assume that we can deal with them. The fact that you don’t recognize your outside influences yet shows that you are being influenced without your even realizing it.
Just to give an example, in the passages where Jesus calls His mother “Woman” - a gentleman on another Forum gave quite a long exegesis on one of these passages (the one from John chapter 2, during the Wedding at Cana) where he explained that most of our traditional interpretations of this passage come from men who had extremely poor relationships with women, and with their mothers in particular.
In addition, the term “woman” in their home culture was considered an insult-word, so they perceived (wrongly, according to this particular writer) that Jesus was intending to put His mother “in her place” as an inferior by using this term.
His thesis was that when we take away these very pagan cultural assumptions about the term “woman,” and realize that Jesus was a Jewish “mama’s boy” (his term) coupled with the fact that in the language Jesus was using at the time, “woman” had an entirely different connotation - one of great respect and awe - that is, by recognizing and then removing our own cultural influences - we understand that particular passage in an entirely different light - one that makes a great deal more sense in terms of the outcome, since although Jesus seems to us to be insulting His mother, not only does she not perceive any insult, she herself hears a clear and respectful “Yes” to her request, and immediately tells the servants to do whatever He tells them to do.
This is just one example of how not knowing what’s influencing us can distort our understanding of the Scriptures - and how not knowing that we’re being influenced by the culture around us can cause us to make totally ridiculous assumptions about the nature of Christ - in this particular case, non-fatal assumptions, but even so, someone who could believe that Jesus insulted His mother may not have thought it necessary to take the steps in his own life to improve his own relationships with women - and that would be really sad, I think.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Okay, that is your opinion, I will give you that, but what are your thoughts when two (or more) peolpe who “know” that they have the Holy Spirit with them but yet believe contradicting things? Like for example you and I. Obviously the Holy Spirit wouldn’t tell one person that 1+1=2 and another person that 1+1=3. Do you see how this quickly falls apart? How then do we trust? You will probably say “Scripture” but then we start this whole argument over again. Our interpretations vary drastically, otherwise we would not even be having this discussion.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
You know what you are right. Of course we all have outside influences. I guess what I should say is that I check out what they are telling before I would agree or disagree with them.
I go to the bible and see for myself. I have faith that the HS has led me to the truth and is still leading,guiding and teaching me the truth. I will nost likely not learn the entire bible in my lifetime, but I will continue to study it until the Lord takes me home.
E
Eddy
Guest
Not wanting to re-enter the discussion, but this jumped out at me. Have you read what King Hezekiah did in 2 Kings 18?
It’s one of my minister’s favourite passages. As humans God gives us things that are good and right, and instead of taking them as gifts for that time, we hold onto them, and begin to worship the gift, rather than the God who gave it. It’s not the only possibility, but it is a very real danger.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
The only thing I could possibly say is that we can still choose to follow men’s beliefs. You rely on what comes from the Magesterium(I think) and it seems that many here rely heavily on the ECF’s. We can still grieve the HS ignore him,if you will.
Relying on man’s word is never a good thing. Look at all the problems there has been within the church since the begining. Paul even writes about heresies right from the get go. In the bible it tells us not to rely on man but on God. I dont know you or anything about you other then you are a devout catholic so that is really all I could say.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
:bible1: Matthew 16:17-19
Hi Maria,
Im sorry I made you go through all of that.I completely misread what you were saying. What you wrote above I already knew. Im sorry for making you go to the trouble of writing something I was already aware of.
R
RNRobert
Guest
I’m familiar with the passage you quoted. He got rid of the bronze serpent because it was no longer being used for the purpose it was intended. But this does not mean that all religious art should be banned. If so, than why did God bother telling Moses to create the bronze serpent in the first place? Or for that matter, the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? That’s simply a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
E
Eddy
Guest
I agree with you. But I think it’s a useful warning. If people begin to focus more on a statue, or on the trappings of faith (we only sing x type of songs, not y, we use organ, but not piano), then it’s time to refocus on the God who is behind it all.
I don’t have a problem with religious art. Nor do I have a problem with veneration of saints (I do understand the difference between veneration rather than worship), though I have no desire to do it myself - if it leads people closer to God, then fair enough. However I have seen people, quite clearly worshipping statues. I know it’s not Catholic teaching, but it does happen, and it makes me uncomfortable. And I’m perfectly aware that some Protestants can be guilty of bibolotry, so it’s not just something that happens among Catholics!
- Status