The Official Catholic Thread

To me, the fact that all these rites exist in the far corners of the earth is a wonderful testament to the triumph of those 12 men who took up the Great Commission to spread Christianity far and wide. The church is truly universal!
 
Let's talk about the powerful Sign of the Cross!

"Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are in the way and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the poor's sake; without toil, for the sick, since also its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of evils; for He has triumphed over them in it, having made a shew of them openly; for when they see the Cross, they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, Who hath bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the Gift; but for this rather honor thy Benefactor."
-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 315 - 386


Self-described "Torah-true Jews" to this day wear tefillin ("phylacteries") on their foreheads and arms as a sign of their identity and devotion. This practice stems from Deuteronomy 6:4-8:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: And thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising. And thou shalt bind them as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes.

Compare those words with the words of St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 386)

Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act.

God speaking, through Ezechiel, to the remnant of Israel (and don't forget that the Church is "Israel"!), tells the faithful:

And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem: and mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof. (Ezechiel 9:4)

Crossing one's self is good public witness! Do not be ashamed of it! To be ashamed of the sign of His Cross is to be ashamed of Him!

The Catholic Sign of the Cross is absolutely ancient, rooted not only in the Old Testament but the New (Apocalypse speaks of those who have the sign of God in their foreheads -- and those who have the sign of the Beast in their foreheads). When Catholics undergo the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Bishop (sometimes a priest) seals the sign on our foreheads with holy chrism. St. John of Damascus wrote

This was given to us as a sign on our forehead, just as the circumcision was given to Israel: for by it we believers are separated and distinguished from unbelievers.

Vocabulary

to "cross oneself," "sign oneself," "bless oneself," or "make the sign of the cross" all mean the same thing

Crossing one's self recalls this seal, and the invocation that is said while making this holy sign calls on our God -- the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost -- and is a sign of our of belief; it is both a "mini-creed" that asserts our belief in the Triune God, and a prayer that invokes Him. The use of holy water when making this sign, such as we do when we enter a church, also recalls our Baptism and should bring to mind that we are born again of water and Spirit, thanks be to God.

Because of what the Sign indicates -- the very Cross of our salvation -- Satan hates it, and our using it makes demons flee. Make the Sign in times of temptation and confusion for great spiritual benefit!

The Sign of the Cross is made thus: First choose your style:

Option A. With your right hand, touch the thumb and ring finger together, and hold your index finger and middle finger together to signify the two natures of Christ. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.

Option B. Hold your thumb and index finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ

Option C. Hold your thumb, index finger, middle finger of your right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and pinky finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward your palm. This is the typically Eastern Catholic practice.

Option D: Hold your right hand open with all 5 fingers -- representing the 5 Wounds of Christ -- together and very slightly curved, and thumb slightly tucked into palm

Then:

touch the forehead as you say (or pray mentally) "In nomine Patris" ("In the name of the Father")

touch the breastbone or top of the belly as you say "et Filii" ("and of the Son")


touch the left shoulder, then right shoulder, as you say "et Spiritus Sancti" ("and of the Holy Ghost"). Note that some people end the Sign by crossing the thumb over the index finger to make a cross, and then kissing the thumb as a way of "kissing the Cross."

An optional prayer to pray after signing yourself in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is this one, said to be favored by St. Benedict:

By the Sign of the Cross, deliver me from my enemies, O Lord.

Note that Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) go from right shoulder to left and end sometimes by touching their right side, above the hip, to symbolize Christ's being pierced by the sword. The Bridgettine nuns in their Myroure of our Ladye write of the mystical reasons for the Latin practice, and how it summarizes the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Ascension:

And then ye bless you with the sygne of the holy crosse, to chase away the fiend with all his deceytes. For, as Chrysostome sayth, wherever the fiends see the signe of the crosse, they flye away, dreading it as a staffe that they are beaten withall. And in thys blessinge ye beginne with youre hande at the hedde downwarde, and then to the lefte side and byleve that our Lord Jesu Christe came down from the head, that is from the Father into erthe by his holy Incarnation, and from the erthe into the left syde, that is hell, by his bitter Passion, and from thence into his Father's righte syde by his glorious Ascension. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

With the Sign, we send a visible sign to the world and follow the advice of St. Ephrem of Syria (died A.D. 373):

Mark all your actions with the sign of the lifegiving Cross. Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it. Let it be a protecting wall round all your conduct, and teach it to your children that they may earnestly learn the custom.


When the Sign is Made

A partial indulgence is gained, under the usual conditions, when piously making the Sign of the Cross

Catholics should begin and end their prayers with the Sign of the Cross and should cross themselves when passing a church to honor Jesus in the Tabernacle, upon entering a church, and after receving Communion. The sign is made, too, in times of trouble or fear (e.g., when receiving bad news, in times of temptation, when hearing an ambulance or fire truck go by), when passing a cemetery or otherwise recalling the dead, when seeing a Crucifix -- any time one wishes to honor and invoke God, or ward away evil, fear, and temptation.

Just for information's sake, the "Distaff Gospels," a collection of old wives tales collected ca. 1470, relate the following in its fifteenth chapter.

If in the morning, when getting up, a person crosses themselves and washes their hands before leaving the house, the devil will not have the power of harming him or her. Otherwise, whatever the work is done on that day will not be profitable.

...About that, Geffrine Tost Preste said that the devil sits on the table of whoever does not say grace before eating, then eats and drinks there.


Other Signs of the Cross

There are other signs of the Cross that Catholics make, too. One is made by tracing a small Cross with the thumb of the right hand on people and things. This sign is especially used by parents when blessing children by tracing the sign on the children's foreheads..1 Sometimes the sign is traced by the thumb on a book of Sacred Scripture and then kissed before reading. The sign is also carved onto loaves of bread before cutting, etc.

Another sign is the large sign made in the air by bishops and priests when blessing persons or material objects.

Yet another is the series of three small Crosses traced by the thumb of the right hand -- one small Cross on the forehead, one small Cross on the lips, and one small Cross on the breast -- just before the Gospel reading at Mass. The sign on the forehead is to show that we believe the Gospel, the sign on the lips is to show that we respect the Gospel and desire to spread the Good News, and the sign on our breast is to show that we love the Gospel and want it kept in our hearts. 2

Make the Sign of the Cross and make it often! Teach it to your children -- even the tiniest of children. If they're infants, take their hands and make the movements for them! Making the Sign should feel as natural as breathing...
Click to expand...

www.fisheaters.com
 
The sign of the cross, in one orthodox prayer contains the Shema "Hear Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One" but I can't find it. I'm looking for that prayer ...Coptic? I'll keep looking. Maybe Ethiopian? I dunno...I was at a liturgy and read the translated. We know it...but I think we all used to say it as part of the sign of the cross. Older traditions must still keep it.


In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the L-rd Our G-d is One.


My family often says the St. Michael and guardian angel prayers...and we cross with grace...we have a Mezzuzah on teh door post (contains Isaiah scriptures) and the epiphany formula on the doors...but I think I want to quickly remind them to make the sign of the cross daily. You know how anybody's mornings go lol. But it's a good habit. Some people have a holy water basin at their doors.
 
Last edited:
auparavant said:
The sign of the cross, in one orthodox prayer contains the Shema "Hear Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One" but I can't find it. I'm looking for that prayer ...Coptic? I'll keep looking. Maybe Ethiopian? I dunno...I was at a liturgy and read the translated. We know it...but I think we all used to say it as part of the sign of the cross. Older traditions must still keep it.


In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the L-rd Our G-d is One.


My family often says the St. Michael and guardian angel prayers...and we cross with grace...we have a Mezzuzah on teh door post (contains Isaiah scriptures) and the epiphany formula on the doors...but I think I want to quickly remind them to make the sign of the cross daily. You know how anybody's mornings go lol. But it's a good habit. Some people have a holy water basin at their doors.
Click to expand...

OK, you're speaking another language LOL. What's a Mezzuzah and the epiphany formula?

I don't have a font but I keep a bottle of holy water close to my door so I use it before I go out. :yep:
 
LOL I said a "basin." Hahah...font, indeed. Epiphany forumula:


is the manifestation of the incarnation of Christ with a formula you put on your door post which is a blessing written yearly..."Take (blessed) chalk (of any colour) and mark on the lintel of your front door 20 + C + M + B + 11 saying:

The three Wise Men,
C Caspar,
M Melchior,
B and Balthasar followed the star of God’s Son who became human
20 two thousand
11 and eleven years ago.
++ May Christ bless our home
++ and remain with us throughout the new year. Amen."

Mezuzah...not Isaiah...although, the first we had...we didn't have a kosher scroll and we rolled Isaiah in it shhhh...don't tell anybody lol. But there's Deuteronomy verses written in it by the commands in 6 and 11 "The Shema" and fixing the commands to your door post. It's pretty much what catholics do by crossing themselves with holy water upon entering the sanctuary. You remember where you are and whose you are.
 
auparavant said:
LOL I said a "basin." Hahah...font, indeed. Epiphany forumula:


is the manifestation of the incarnation of Christ with a formula you put on your door post which is a blessing written yearly..."Take (blessed) chalk (of any colour) and mark on the lintel of your front door 20 + C + M + B + 11 saying:

The three Wise Men,
C Caspar,
M Melchior,
B and Balthasar followed the star of God’s Son who became human
20 two thousand
11 and eleven years ago.
++ May Christ bless our home
++ and remain with us throughout the new year. Amen."

Mezuzah...not Isaiah...although, the first we had...we didn't have a kosher scroll and we rolled Isaiah in it shhhh...don't tell anybody lol. But there's Deuteronomy verses written in it by the commands in 6 and 11 "The Shema" and fixing the commands to your door post. It's pretty much what catholics do by crossing themselves with holy water upon entering the sanctuary. You remember where you are and whose you are.
Click to expand...


This is pretty new (and interesting) to me. I will share it with my bible study group next thursday.

THanks for the info.
 
auparavant said:
Many ask, most do not comprehend, but this most compelling story is full of heart. I feel for anyone who has been persecuted for arriving at his faith, no matter what it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDumU0TSrY&feature=related
Click to expand...

When asked "why" he said "how do you tell God no?" Deep.

I've been meaning to read his book as well as the Hahn's conversion story. I know he went through hell being a Pentecostal. Never thought to look him up on youtube so thanks for posting this video. :yep:
 
I went to TLM today and was in church for 2.5 hours! The 40 hours devotion started today which included a procession of the Blessed Sacrament around the church, the Litany of the saints, and then private adoration. Here is more info about the 40 Hours Devotion:

40 Hours Devotion, or "Quarant'Ore"

The 40 Hours Devotion, introduced into Rome by St. Philip Neri in 1548, is the collective adoration of the exposed Eucharist for a period of 40 hours, in honor of the time Our Lord spent in the tomb (no single person is expected to spend 40 hours in adoration). While we say in the Creed that Christ was in the tomb for "3 days," those days are in the reckoning of the Old Testament religion, which counted any part of a day as "a day." In other words, Our Lord died at 3:00 on Friday (day one), descended into Hell (the afterworld) to save the righteous dead and was laid in the tomb on Saturday (day two), and arose on Sunday morning (day three). In modern terms, we'd say He was in the sepulcher for "1 1/2 days or so" because some of those "days" are partial days, but those who practiced the Old Testament religion, and those who practice modern Judaism, would consider that time period "3 days." Counting the time by hours, however, we can see that from 3:00 PM Friday to 6:00 AM Sunday are 40 hours.

This devotion is often practiced during the Sacred Triduum (the three days before Easter which consist of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday), but is also offered in times surrounding other great Feasts, or on regular schedules not related to the calendar at all.

When visiting the Blessed Sacrament as the 40 Hours Devotion goes on, we are to recite a sequence of an Our Father, a Hail Mary, and a Glory be 5 times :look: oops, didn't do this :look:-- the last cycle being for the intentions of the Holy Father. If one does this after having gone to Confession and received Communion, one recelves a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions).
Click to expand...

www.fisheaters.com

I will try to go back a few times tomorrow and Tuesday.
 
http://www.todayscatholicnews.org/2012/09/dealing-with-difficult-people/


Dealing with difficult people

We all have them in our lives — those people we don’t like. People who rub us the wrong way, who push our buttons, and sometimes more seriously, people who truly are dangerous to our mental or physical health. What should we do?

Jesus tells His followers to forgive 70 times seven (Mt 18:21-23). But how?

St. Therese wanted to obey Jesus’ commandment to love one’s enemies. She shared that, in Carmel, there are no enemies, but there were some annoying people. Think of that — people can even annoy saints! There were some nuns whom St. Therese did not like, but Therese set about going out of her way to treat them lovingly just as Christ would. This should be our response to the difficult people in our lives — simply to treat those people with love, regardless of our feelings.

“But the Our Father prays ‘lead us not into temptation’ and this person is a huge temptation for me!” you may say. And indeed that very well may be true. God doesn’t ask us to seek out difficult people, just treat them with kindness and patience when we do come in contact with them.

Do you have difficulty forgiving an offense? You’ve heard the old adage “Hurt (adjective) people hurt (verb) people”? Well, there is much truth to that. Before this difficult person hurt you, he was likely hurt by someone else. This does not excuse his sin, of course, but if you view the person as God created him, an innocent soul before he was swayed by sin, it is easier to forgive.

Once we have forgiven should we forget? Yes and no. Yes, we should not dwell upon the offenses against us. We should pray for and wish the best for even those who do evil to us. However, we should not feel compelled to put ourselves in a situation where we “forget” the offense occurred and thus can be seriously hurt again. If someone has mentally or physically abused or hurt our children, our spouse or us, for example, it is not only okay to avoid that person but it is imperative that we do so. What about forgiving when the perpetrator is not penitent? Kindness should be offered, but again, no risks taken.

When thinking about dealing with difficult people, it helps to categorize them into two groups — those who are harmless and those who are dangerous. Dangerous people should clearly be avoided, but what about harmless ones? They can be some of the most annoying.

Handling harmless, annoying people is not hard. When contact is unavoidable, approach them rather than wait to be approached. Ask their opinion before they offer it. Validate them with a sincere compliment. Be firm in your boundaries and don’t feel badly about leaving when you need to do so. Don’t dwell on what annoys you about them. Brush off the annoyance by chalking it up to the differences in personalities that God has created and leave judgment of them to Him. Decide not to do to others what’s been done to you.

What if the difficult person is family, a harshly critical in-law or sibling?

Similar strategies can be applied: Listen, smile, be kind and excuse.

Listen. Listen to what the person is saying, not just the words but also his tone and the body language. Is he frustrated? Does he simply want validation of his own skills or value? Sometimes just listening softens people. It also helps you develop patience.

Smile. Smile, because smiles generally disarm unkindness and anger. Smiles demonstrate confidence. They show empathy. Smiling also helps you develop a joyful spirit.

Be kind. Be kind because you are a Catholic Christian and the difficult person is also one of God’s Divine creations. Jesus also died for the salvation of this difficult person and out of respect for that, you must be kind. Being kind helps you develop feeling kind.

Excuse. Excuse the behavior by thinking of the most empathetic reason she could have said or done what she said or did. She might have a headache. She might have just learned her husband lost his job. Give difficult people the same kind of justification you would like for yourself when you have said or done something annoying or unkind.

After listening, smiling, being kind and mentally excusing the behavior of a difficult person, sometimes you might have to just turn away. God does not ask us to be human punching bags or “take” unkind behavior.

“But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” — Lk 6:27-28.

Posted on September 4, 2012, to:
 
Waits for it, waits for it....got several opposing ones today...but whatever, we know and love her and thank her for all her work on that side of the Kingdom!!!

kateri2.jpg
 
Last night at the 40 Hours devotion, I learned about the Miracle at Lanciano. Basically, a monk in the 700s was struggling with his belief in the Real Presence. As he said Mass, the bread and wine changed into real flesh and blood (which still exist today, over 1000 years later!). The part that gave me goosebumps is when scientists in 1970 examined the bread and wine scientifically (under a microscope) they found myocardial tissue (HEART muscle) in the bread and the blood was indeed blood. Both were of the same blood type AB. Mind blown! I know some do not believe in the Real Presence and it is truly a mystery, but it amazes me that Jesus condescends to take the appearance of bread and wine to nourish us. I would love to do a study on the foreshadowing on the Eucharist in the Bible from Melchisidek, the high priest, to manna to the Last Supper. I may start a new thread :look:
 
ARE CATHOLICS INTO THE BIBLE.

'

Belle Du Jour , here you go. Someone shared this a couple thursday's ago during bible study. If you get a chance ps check out the website and the authors story. Pretty inspiring

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/bible_catholics.php

Catholics and Evangelicals are in total agreement that the Bible is the Word of God. It is the most happening book on the planet. This site has over 1000 Biblical quotes on it. I love the Bible. Amen!
Catholics and Evangelicals use the same New Testament.
Thirty-nine books of the Old Testament books are identical.
Catholics and Evangelicals can get into the Word together.
I think it is good that Evangelicals and Catholics have lively and animated discussions about the interpretation of Scripture. That's the spice of life. Evangelicals do that with each other all the time. That's part of the reason why there are so many denominations :-)
What does the Catholic Church teach about Bible access and reading?

In sections 131-133 of the Catechism we find this:
Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."...Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology...The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
​
I do not think it could be any clearer than this. The Church is telling Catholics "Read your Bibles." You may have heard that Catholics were not allowed read the Bible in earlier centuries. That is a very complicated subject that many Evangelical pastors have turned into a simplistic slogan against Catholics. In the days when peasants were illiterate, peasant Catholics depended on clergy who could read, on the Scripture stories as depicted visually on stain glass windows and statues.
The message to Catholics of this generation, who are literate and able to read, unlike Christians in earlier centuries is "Read your Bibles." We thank our Evangelical friends for so enthusiastically getting into Scripture and helping turn the last century into an age of Bible literacy.
The Catholic Mass is totally Bible-centered

The Processional March of each Mass is lead by a person holding the Cross and then a person holding the Bible up high in the air.
What many Evangelicals don't know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it, and the Liturgy is pulled right out of Scripture (Mat 26:26-28, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17). This layout of the Mass has continued for over a thousand years. If I follow Church advice and go to Mass everyday, I make a beautiful journey through the Bible. Perhaps by going to daily Mass we do not learn the chapter and verse numbers but it is still a wonderful exposure to Scripture. It is kind of like this. When I was a kid I did not know all the street numbers in my neighbourhood like the postman, but I knew where everybody was because I was exposed to them every day. I got to know them. By going to Mass we get a fantastic exposure to God's Word.
Of course we have to study privately and/or in groups also and the Church instructs us to do that.

The Catholic Church protected the Bible

The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible. The "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk's copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.
The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV sticker on it. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). A timeline of how the Bible came to us is here. Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:
"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"
Even the word Bible is a Catholic word. Surprisingly, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. It means books from the Greek word βυβλος-byblos meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We love the Bible. Honest!

Does the Catholic Church agree that the Bible is the unerring Word of God?

The Catholic position on Scripture has always been that it is without error on faith and morals and also on everything else. It is the word of God, word for word. The imperfect people who received inspiration to write it did not mess up when they put the pen to paper, even though they were fallible humans. Even with the rise of science Vatican I asserted it, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pious XII, and Vatican II all reasserted the complete inerrancy of Scripture. The box to the right shows the councils and Popes' reaffirmation of this truth.
Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc... but Pope Paul VI stood by the Church's consistent position. The line "for the sake of our salvation" probably meant that God gave us Scripture for the purpose of our salvation. It does not make sense to say that God would put exactly what he wanted in Scripture and create an error there. To assume that the inspired writers made mistakes is to put the Bible on the same level as every other inspired book, which clearly it is not.

(CONT'D)
 
Last edited:
Why do we sometimes need help interpreting Scripture?

Scripture says:
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch...reading the prophet Isaiah...[Philip] asked "do you understand what you are reading?" He replied "How can I unless someone guides me?" and he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (Acts 8:30-31)
​
Philip, who was an apostle and a representative of Christ's Church, helped the Ethiopian eunuch interpret the Scripture. In the Old Testament we read:
So the Levites read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8 - my emphasis)
​
Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the unerring word of God. Where we differ is where the burden of interpretation lies. Evangelicals follow Martin Luther’s feeling that an individual can interpret the Bible perfectly if they pray first. Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit guides our Bible reading and illuminates our understanding. I've had some amazing experiences with Scripture where the words just came alive for me.
However, I'm not sure that every time someone picks up a Bible, prays, and starts reading, that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit, even if they are sincere. For example, Martin Luther, after praying and reading the Bible, decided that the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible. To me this is a problem, because here is a guy prayerfully reading the Bible, who decided parts of it didn't belong there, yet he said the Bible was the unerring word of God. This seems kind of cyclical to me. In the preface to his Bible, Martin Luther said:
"the St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw ... for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."

About the Book of Revelation, Luther said:
​
"I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.. . . and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . there are many far better books for us to keep."
​
So even for Martin Luther, Scripture alone was not enough, he acknowledged that there needed to be human authority governing it, he just thought that the authority should be him, rather than the Catholic Church.

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. They say, "the main things are the plain things." My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are forwarded by sincere honest Christians who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Surely God did not want people to have conflicting interpretations of Scripture, because that would be in conflict with the Bible itself which calls us to unity. (Jn 17:21)

Each of these 33,820 denominations was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true.

Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.

To me this is an unauthentic and superficial unity, not the deep unity that we are called to. Many have written to me and said "the only thing that is important is that we agree that Jesus is Lord." I totally agree that Jesus is Lord, but if that is all we needed to know then I wonder why He gave us 1500 pages of Scripture. He could have just showed up for a day and said "I'm Lord" and did a big miracle and split, but He didn't. He taught his apostles, who were the Church, for 3 years. His apostles wrote down his words and eventually it became what we now call the Bible. I think this was Jesus' wish.

Many "Bible believing" denominations who say "Jesus is Lord" have now ruled that Gay Marriage and abortion are OK. This includes Lutherans, some Methodist churches, the United Church, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc. That is their interpretation of Scripture. I have a problem with that. I think Jesus understood the human mind's capacity to rationalize its own wishes even with the Bible in hand, and while saying "Jesus is Lord." I believe we need a higher authority than millions of diverse and conflicting Christians with Bibles in their hands. Catholics think that the final word on the interpretation of Scripture falls on the authority to which Jesus appointed. (Mathew 16:18-19).

Paul and Barnabus consulted the central authority of the Church on the interpretation of Scripture

We have a Biblical example of the Church having a central interpreter in early times during the crisis of faith over circumcision. (Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3) This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.

Isn't the Bible alone the only Authority? (Sola Scriptura)

That is probably the biggest division between Catholics and Evangelicals. So I thought I should explain it a bit and not leave it hanging, 'cause I can see how it seems blasphemous for a Catholic to say the Bible is not the "only" authority. Most certainly the Bible is infallible. However, Catholics believe that the Bible itself teaches us that the Church came before the Bible. Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. A history of the Bible is here. If Jesus inspired members of the Church to infallibly write the Bible and later infallibly decide on what writings to include in the Bible, I think He can inspire the Church to make right interpretation of Scripture on matters that are critical to our salvation.
The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone)
"...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16)
​
The passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue.
Catholics believe that the "Bible alone" theory is not what the Bible teaches.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)
Scripture says "And the Word became Flesh" (Jn1:1) It doesn't say "and the Word became paper." God became Flesh, He instituted and commissioned his Church. Later He inspired members of his Church to write, then He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Bible, and He inspired his Church to interpret it. This is what Catholics believe, and that is what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

(Cont'd)
 
Why does the Catholic Church think that its interpretation of Scripture is right?

Catholics believe Jesus ordained Peter and the Apostles to be the teaching authority over God’s Word to us. We believe that God gave Peter a special Grace to teach infallibly. Jesus said "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:18). We believe that Jesus extends this grace through Peter's successors to the present day Pope. We call this special grace infallibility. We think it is a rallying point and a great source of unity that Jesus summons us to in Scripture. More Christians are in unity with Rome in this way than all the other denominations combined.
The Catholic Church does not claim to fully understand all Scripture. There are many mysteries within its pages that still are not fully understood. What the Church is saying is that whatever has been revealed to it and set out in Dogma is true. There are many areas of Scripture that are still mysteries, and therefore not defined as Dogma. There is much for the Church to learn. We believe God is not finished with us. That is why we say that the Catholic Church is on a pilgrimage. (more about that below)
How is it possible for one organization to be confident in its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps the question should be "Can God make it possible for one organization to have the power of discernment?" Could God do this if He wanted to? I believe every Christian would agree that He can do anything. The Church believes Jesus wanted to do this, He promised it, and He delivered. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13).
Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus' wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5).

Catholics take the Bible at its Word

A Catholic friend Gary Hoge says that he discovered that in most cases where Catholics and Protestants disagree over biblical interpretation, it was, ironically, the Catholics who interpreted the Bible literally, where we Protestants gave it a figurative, allegorical interpretation. For instance:
· When Jesus says, "You must be born of water and the Spirit," Catholics interpret this literally: "Water" equals "water," i.e., baptism. But some Protestants say that the water refers to something else, perhaps the preaching of the gospel, or even the amniotic fluid of natural child-birth.
· When Paul says that Jesus cleanses his church by "the washing with water," Catholics interpret this literally. "Washing with water" equals "washing with water"; another reference to baptism. But some Protestants say it refers to something else, perhaps the Scriptures.
· When Jesus says, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven," Catholics, again, interpret this literally and believe that Jesus gave his apostles the authority to forgive sins in His name. But some Protestants say that this is just a reference to the apostles' authority to preach the gospel.
· Again, when Jesus says, "This is my body," and "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life," Catholics interpret this literally. The Eucharist is His body; it is truly His flesh and blood, though it does not appear to be. But most Protestants say that it remains only bread and wine (or grape juice) and that, once again, we should not take Jesus' words literally.
· [and I add] When the Angel Gabriel says Mary is "full of Grace", and when Mary says "all generations will call me blessed" and "my soul magnifies the Lord" we take the Bible at its word.
...It seemed to me that Catholic theology usually allowed the Bible to simply mean what it says, without the complicated exegesis and linguistic gyrations that were sometimes necessary to make it support my beliefs. (From Gary Hoge)
Catholics do believe what the Bible says.


Is Church authority squashing the individual's private interpretation of Scripture?

I don't think the Church is into squashing the individual. In fact it has great respect for the individual. Most of our Saints were simple individuals not in positions of power. Yet they have become great examples to the whole Church. The Church has great respect for these individuals who have said "yes" to the Lord. The Church learns from these individuals and has incorporated their interpretations of Scripture into doctrine. The Church relies on gifted individuals. The Church feels that God has anointed some individuals such as Thomas Aquinas with understanding. The Church goes into a process of prayer and discernment on the validity of interpretations by individuals and makes doctrine from some of the interpretations that emerge out of this official discernment.
The Church is totally cool with private interpretation of Scripture. In fact many of our doctrines were defined through the giftings of people like Thomas Aquinas and Jerome who had private revelations about the interpretation of Scripture. These insights went through a process of discernment, prayer and examination by the Church. Once accepted, they eventually helped mold our understanding of what God was saying to the Church through his Holy Word.
The Church is also cool with guys like you and me having private revelation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine. If we have a new insight into an area, it can be discerned, prayed over and reviewed the same way as it was for Thomas Aquinas and others who helped mold the Church's understanding of Scripture.

We have a recent example of this. Thérèse de Lisieux was a young nun who died at 24 years old. She was a "nobody" in the Church - just a little nun in a far away Carmelite convent. The Church looked at her writings and they were floored! They made her a doctor of the Church and she has influenced modern thought about the Bible in a major way. My evangelical friends will be glad to know that her greatest contribution was her total abandonment and confidence in Jesus. She had a personal relationship to Him. He was her personal Saviour.
 
What about the Catholic Church's evolving understanding, isn't that relativism?

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. I would say that that is pretty well the entire job of an Evangelical preacher, to help people interpret Scripture and put it into practice in their lives. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups (i.e., the Rapture). Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think it's better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what has been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving.
What many Evangelicals do not know is that no mainstream Evangelical denomination agrees with the writings of the early reformers on some fundamental issues; for instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the role of the Eucharist, contraception, etc... Martin Luther's writings (even after the reform) are closer to Catholicism than they are to modern ECLA Lutherans. I think this clearly shows that the Evangelical understanding of Scripture has "evolved."
Richard John Neuhaus describes the Catholic Church's Pilgrimage of Faith this way.
. . . the Catholic Church, knowing that theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . .(3)
Article 66-67 of the Catechism says:
"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. ...Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
Evangelicals had an "evolving understanding" of Scripture regarding slavery

Perhaps the best way to throw light upon the Catholic approach is to look a dilemma in the Protestant world in the last century. Many slave owners used Scripture to justify the slave trade. They had many Bible quotes to back it up. Some would say that people who were against slavery were against the Bible and therefore against God. However, good Christians had a revelation about the interpretation of Scripture. Careful and prayerful examination of these scriptural passages revealed that the abolition of slavery would in no way contradict Scripture. Although the Bible had not changed, its meaning on this matter sharpened. Scriptural understanding matured on this matter. After much pain, God's will on the interpretation of Scripture about slavery won out. Praise God. "Amazing Grace." (The Vatican's interpretation of Scripture always was against slavery.)
Right up until the 1500's Christians including the reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and the Catholic church thought the planet earth couldn't move around the sun. They cited Scripture passages stating that the world was "immovable" therefore they felt it could not turn as Copernicus theorized. (i.e., 1 Chron 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and Ps 104:5)
Currently thousands of denominations are interpreting Scripture differently from each other, even though Scripture warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20) Each group is saying they have the correct interpretation. To me this is a perfect example of the "many truths" problem that is found in relativism.
Catholics feel that God is not finished with humanity and that He is constantly revealing things about his Holy Word to us. The Church is on a "Pilgrimage" of faith and understanding. It is maturing and evolving. I don't think the Bible is a dusty archaic book that is frozen in time. It is the living word of God.

Evangelicals often trust an "authority's" interpretation of Scripture rather than their own personal interpretation

Not many of us understand Hebrew and Greek of 2000 years ago which is considerably different from today’s Hebrew and Greek. Each translation of the Bible is interpreted based on many historical factors such language usage of the time etc. The Evangelical who reads the Bible in English, is already reading someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. They trust someone else’s judgment.
The minute we walk into Church and hear a pastor's sermon we are influenced on Bible interpretation. Every Evangelical who goes to a Bible study is being influenced by someone else's interpretation of Scripture. Every student in an Evangelical Bible College is being influenced. We must admit that we are all affected by many different influences when interpreting Scripture. And in a way, these Evangelical sources act as teaching authorities, the way the Vatican does for Catholics.
One of my Evangelical friends used to open up the New International Bible Commentary (an authority) in order to get the "right" interpretation. This does not appear to me to be consistent with his Sola Scriptural beliefs? It seems that commentaries, concourses and even Bible studies are quite a Catholic idea in that they represent an "authoritative correct" interpretation of Scripture. Any Evangelical student in Bible college has accepted an "authoritative" interpretation of Scripture. But many of these organizations are in conflict with each other on the interpretation of Scripture even though their leaders are prayerful, brilliant, faithful and humble people. It still doesn't solve the unity problem. Who's right - they both prayerfully read their Bibles? Jesus wanted all Christians to be unified in their understanding of Scripture. We think the inspired authority explanation is more Biblical and offers a greater chance at Christian unity.

Why do Catholics refer to the Catechism? Why don't Catholics just use the Bible?

If I walk into any Evangelical book store I will find abundant commentaries on the Bible. Every Evangelical seminary has hundreds of books that are studies to support the students on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Every denomination has statements about how it interprets Scripture. The Catechism is a synopsis of the Catholic faith. Its primary source is Scripture. Its other sources are the history and writings of the very first Christians (which we call the Church Fathers), the liturgy, and the Church's teaching authority which is called the Magisterium. If you want to know what the Church teaches about anything from abortion to the Trinity, you will find it in the Catechism. The Catechism in no way replaces Scripture. It is dependent on Scripture.

source: http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/bible_catholics.php
 
Controversial for some, but causing yet others to derive a deeper meaning and respect for all humanity:


http://jewishmag.com/85mag/prague/prague.htm

The "Vav" from the Charles Bridge

By Steven Plaut

The glistening golden letters around the statue of Christ have always been a matter of controversy for Prague's Jews. The statue with the letters raised around it is a central feature on the Charles Bridge, the bridge that spans the Vltava River, joining the two halves of Prague. It was built in Prague's golden age by King Charles I, the Czech king who went on to become Charles IV of the Holy Roman Empire. The bridge is one of the artistic wonders of Prague, full of crowds admiring the statues of saints and kings bedecking the sides of the structure, long since converted into a pedestrian avenue. But the statue of Jesus has long been the center of contention.

In 1696, the Prague authorities accused a local Jewish leader, one Elias Backoffen, of blasphemy. As his punishment he was ordered to raise the funds for purchasing of gold-plated Hebrew letters, placed around the head of the statue, spelling out "Holy, Holy, Holy, the Lord of Hosts," the Kedusha from the Hebrew prayer and originating in the vision from the Book of Isaiah. The inscription was a symbolic humiliation and degradation of Prague Jews, forcing them to pay for a set of golden letters referring to God and hung around the neck of the statue of Christ.

And there they have hung ever since. Today, in post-communist twenty-first century Prague, some find the residual symbol of humiliation irritating. Others at least want it moderated and placed in historic context. Back in 2000 some local Jews requested that tables and placards be set up alongside the statue, explaining to passersby the history behind the letters, and pointing out that when Jews recite the same words they are not referring to Jesus. The Mayor of Prague agreed, and even offered to foot the bill. Local Catholic Church officials approved the idea. Tables were set up with ecumenical fanfare and goodwill.

But today the placards and tables with the explanations have long since disappeared. Alongside the statue there is a Dixieland band, playing New Orleans classics, but in Czech. Another group nearby plays soft Czech folk songs, and hustlers try to sell "art" to the tourists. The golden letters are still there. Well, all except for one. The "Vav" in the middle of the Tetragram name of God has disappeared. Despite the bridge being under 24-hour-a-day electronic surveillance, someone somehow removed the "Vav" (or "V") from the set of letters. So the golden letters now read, "Holy Holy Holy YHH of Hosts", which essentially renders the inscription to be Hebrew gibberish.

Prague_Charles_Bridge_Jesus.jpg
 
Isn't that against the scripture? No graven images?

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

Do Catholics Worship Statues?


"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!

God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

The Religious Uses of Images

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).

What About Bowing?

Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
 
Hiding the Second Commandment?

Another charge sometimes made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church "hides" the second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms, the first commandment is often listed as "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3), and the second is listed as "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." (Ex. 20:7). From this, it is argued that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry to justify their use of religious statues. But this is false. Catholics simply group the commandments differently from most Protestants.

In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.

Jews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy," though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).

When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as "You shall have no other gods before me." This is no attempt to "hide" the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.

The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities" (CCC 2066).



The Form of God?

Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: "ince you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations?



The Answer Is No

Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).

But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire." Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.

The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.

But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Christ is the tangible, divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God.

We read that when the magi were "going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.

The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or "fish emblem."

Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.



Idolatry Condemned by the Church

Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, "[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols."

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed "by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374).

"Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’" (CCC 2114).

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
 
Last edited:
No, this is not a proselytization attempt. It is explaining the seemingly inexplicable. It is an attempt to set the record straight based upon our adherence to the scriptures and holy and sacred tradition handed down through the apostles, guided by the H-ly Spirit so that heretical charges can be put to rest. You will probably disagree anyway, but the reasons are there in easy to read format. It's like call an apple purple when it's red. Someone may want to see it as purple, but if it's red, then it's red.
 
No, we don't. I don't get why someone would think that venerating/meditating on an object (like a crucifix or statue) that allows one to meditate on the life of Christ, His Passion, His suffering and His resurrection, etc is a BAD thing. It doesn't make sense.

To me, it's like the rosary. People are so quick to slam it and say it's "vain repetition" (totally misapplying that verse of scripture BTW) but they don't understand or care to understand that the Rosary is a deep form of contemplative prayer on the life of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this. I just finished posting (same citations are the same) in the other thread that I had bumped.
 
I think the verses are helpful--the passage about the bronze serpent is particularly thought-provoking. It's one of those really interesting happenings in the OT, kind of like the story of the man who fell on Elijah's bones and was immediately healed (relics).

It does seem to me, though, that the question about whether the use of statues is idolatry is ultimately a question about whether the veneration of saints is idolatry. In answering that question, often the distinction between "latria" and "dulia" is made, with latria being only given to God. The apologetical arguments that I've read on that point haven't always been convincing, as saints are often honored in a manner that we would not honor a living person (at least not in the West--some of this is cultural, imo).

To take a non-Catholic example, I had the pleasure of spending a few months as a visitor in an Orthodox parish. At one point, a "wonder working icon" of Our Lady of Sitka (Alaska) was brought to the church. There was a service dedicated to the Theotokos (Mary) in which the icon was displayed at the front of the church and a liturgy of prayers was sung to the Theotokos with much kneeling and bowing before the icon. I was honestly rather mortified, as for me, such acts fall squarely into the "God" category and again, for me, are reserved as an expression of worship toward God. (the point about Japanese culture is duly noted, which is why I do think that sensibilities about such things differ across cultures and amongst individuals).

On my part, it is easier for me to say that insofar as I could discern from our fellowship and discussions together, that the individuals of that church did not have idolatrous hearts than it is for me to say that such a service was not idolatrous. Do they submit themselves or their hearts to the icon, or the Theotokos, rather than to God? No, not in any way that I could tell. And yet I would not participate in such a service in the future.

Veneration is not a black or white thing, I think. It remains a matter of the heart. I've seen some rely on book definitions of idolatry and philosophical distinctions on the nature of worship, and while such distinctions are real, they can't in themselves answer the question of whether an individual, at heart, is offering to a creature what should only be offered to the Creator. People still have to continually sift their own hearts to know whether they are truly submitting to Him or to something man-made.
 
Last edited:
Belle Du Jour said:
No, we don't. I don't get why someone would think that venerating/meditating on an object (like a crucifix or statue) that allows one to meditate on the life of Christ, His Passion, His suffering and His resurrection, etc is a BAD thing. It doesn't make sense.

To me, it's like the rosary. People are so quick to slam it and say it's "vain repetition" (totally misapplying that verse of scripture BTW) but they don't understand or care to understand that the Rosary is a deep form of contemplative prayer on the life of Christ.
Click to expand...


And this also goes beyond the Eastern and Western Church (catholic/orthodox) and includes protestants as they are also called idolators for worshiping Jesus, a human being. It's important for all christians to know what we do and why we do it, even if it is believing in Jesus and possessing a cross or a crucifix, dove symbol or the fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JaneBond007
For Catholics: Transformation of the Heart
Replies
8
Views
2K
Galadriel
Galadriel
Lucia
Call to Prayer against events that open doorways to evil. Prayer Warriors Rise Up
Replies
3
Views
4K
Lucia
Lucia
Back
Top