> Regarding the veneration of icons, the Catechism affirms, "The honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an ...

> Regarding the veneration of icons, the Catechism affirms, "The honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it" (CCC 2132). The veneration of icons has been part of Christian practice since the early centuries of the Church. Icons are not worshipped as idols but are seen as sacred images that point to the reality of the person or event depicted. The veneration of icons is rooted in the belief in the Incarnation, that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, and that through the material world, we can encounter the divine.
Why does this make some Christians seethe?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    >Why does this make some Christians seethe?

    HERETICS, NOT CHRISTIANS.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you venerating someone who is not God? Why are you venerating an image as if it is literally the subject? That’s exactly what idolatry is.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No idolatry is the golden calf, not the family of God and the saints etc.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Psalm 115
        > Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?
        >But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
        >Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
        >They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
        >They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
        >They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
        >They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
        Does this not sound a bit familiar? The message is explicitly that the One and Only God will never be found in a statue, it is only a statue, and it is pagan to give it any particular reverence beyond that. Regardless of your stance on prayer to saints the same would apply also, an icon of Mary is not Mary and it is idolatry to venerate it as such. I actually would not endorse full blown iconoclasm because the Bible is clear an image is only an image, but what the Catechism has described in the OP is literally blatant idolatry.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Should just convert to Judaism and wave a chicken on your head

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            judaism was invented around the same time as roman catholicism. I'm not sure how this absolves your pedo cult.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jews and Islam consider it idoltory and I guess some protestants as well at least they are keeping the spirit of abrahamic monotheism not that I like them any better . Death to all abrahamic's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

      >Why are you venerating someone who is not God?

      VENERATION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD, OF SAINT JOSEPH, OF ALL THE OTHER SAINTS, OF THE ANGELS, AND ARCHANGELS, BRINGS US CLOSER TO GOD, SINCE THEY ARE INTERMEDIARIES, AND IN VENERATING THEM, THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST BECOMES ENERGIZED.

      >Why are you venerating an image as if it is literally the subject? That’s exactly what idolatry is.

      IDOLATRY IS WORSHIPPING IMAGES; WE DO NOT WORSHIP IMAGES.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >intermediaries
        The Good Book tells us there is only one intermediary and His name is Jesus Christ.

        • 2 weeks ago
          ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

          JESUSCHRIST IS THE MEDIVM, NOT THE MEDIATOR.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pharisee-tier pilpul

          • 2 weeks ago
            ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

            YOU WOULD RATHER RETREAT INTO OBDURATENESS, AND SPOUT SOME NON SEQVITVR, THAN ADMIT THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND: YOU ARE A MORON.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He rebuked you, moron

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He literally said the opposite of scripture

            JESUSCHRIST IS THE MEDIVM, NOT THE MEDIATOR.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          God is P2P. He needs no middleman.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus is P2P. He needs no middleman.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who organized the good book?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Martin Luther when he jettisoned apocrypha fanfic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you a Lutheran, or just trolling? I'm actually curious as to the Lutheran perspective on the NT books considered uninspired (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m being facetious, we can’t credit the Roman church for compiling the writings of other people any more than we can credit Martin Luther for making the Final Cut. All they did was curate material they got elsewhere.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Biblical canon was established hundreds of years before then Nicene Council. We know it because of how popularly cited works were by the church for the first three centuries. The Catholic Church merely rubber stamped what was already known. Debating things like the Sheppard of Herma is not relevant.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nta btw

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure what "elsewhere" is supposed to mean, when the writers of those books were the apostles who were the first governors & teachers in that Church.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, they weren’t. The papist efforts to retroactively monopolise the early church are about as credible as Joseph Smith claiming they were all Mormons.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So if you believe this you'd be Orthodox right?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Orthodox means right opinion, and he is right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean Orthodox as in communion with one of the Orthodox churches like the Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I believe the early church was relatively anarchic and none of the so-called apostolic churches had really coalesced yet. Especially not the Roman ones. The actual capital-C Church founded by Christ is a spiritual one that transcends sectarianism.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Idolatry is about worship and since you presumably deny the eucharist you don’t even worship at all, so why don’t you stop criticizing Catholics for asking for prayer from people that scripture expressly states are alive in heaven and can hear us.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > deny the eucharist
        Nope, it says right there in black and white, this is the body and blood of Christ. John Calvin, Martin Luther and even the Satanic demon Anglican Church are all unanimous on this.
        > so why don’t you stop criticizing Catholics for asking for prayer from people that scripture expressly states are alive in heaven
        I already said in the very post you are replying to that this is a separate issue to intercession of Saints and that this is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about using an image as a conduit for veneration, the Bible explicitly condemns this in no uncertain terms.
        Romans 1:20-23
        > For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
        >Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
        >Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
        >And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
        The Bible is crystal clear. An image is not the thing it is representative of and to venerate it as if it is would be a disgrace to the real God that exists all around us. If we accept the veneration of Saints this principle applies here also. You simply can not square the veneration of an image with Scripture, because what the Catholic Catechism is saying in the OP that the veneration of the image mediates the veneration of the subject of the image is the exact blatant opposite of what the Bible says, which is that the image is nothing but an inanimate soulless man made image

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong. Zwingli believed Christ was present at mass because of the gathering of Christians but not in the bread itself. Luther believed that Christ was “present” but that it was not literally his body (specifically he likened it to an iron rod becoming hot when placed in a fire; it doesn’t become fire, but it becomes more like it). Anglican beliefs are all over the spectrum, but only Anglo-Catholics affirm it is in any way a corporeal presence, and the majority at best take the Lutheran position of spiritual presence.

          Either you’re ignorant, lying, or intentionally misunderstanding the Catholic position to play a semantics game around what exactly the proper understanding of the scripture is. End this pathetic charade of endless criticism and state what set of doctrines you are in favor of so that we can holistically compare them to Catholicism, or stop posting please.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay and all of those are variants of the belief that the Bible is literal when it says that this is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not necessary to describe this miracle in the terminology of Pagan Aristotelian philosophy to affirm the real presence in the Eucharist. Face it, you jumped the gun by assuming Protestants necessarily believe the Eucharist is purely symbolic and now you are coping.
            >End this pathetic charade of endless criticism and state what set of doctrines you are in favor
            I already said. I am in favour of the real presence in the Eucharist and I am against the veneration of images. Is there something else you think is relevant about my beliefs to engage with the scriptural fidelity of venerating images or are you just hoping for some material to attack so you can count this exchange as a win in your mind?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Denomination (or coherent source for a statement of beliefs) NOW. Sets of doctrine need to be compared holistically. If I can take 80% of Catholicism on reason and 20% on faith, while only being able to take 70% of Presbyterianism for example, then Catholicism remains more convincing to me. Therefore it is utterly useless to endlessly have threads criticizing individual doctrines or practices against Catholicism that don’t provide any alternative belief system. At that point you’re not arguing for anything except Atheism or Deism.

            >Lutheran position of spiritual presence.
            The Lutheran position is not spiritual presence. Read the confession, Article X of the Augsburg confession and Article VI of the Smalcald Articles.
            Lutherans believe that The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

            >“Concerning the Lord‘s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord‘s Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching.”

            Fair enough. It’s still semantically odd with the use of the word “presence” and such, but whatever. Either way, it is a mere component of my overall point, which remains intact. Properly state some other set of beliefs I should adopt instead of Catholicism. Otherwise you aren’t arguing for any faith, you’re just attacking mine.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’d say I lean Baptist if you had to pigeonhole me into one but there are many questions on theology I have yet to commit to a confident position on. In general I take truth-seeking as my own personal responsibility in which I must first look to God before to any man. The only alternative to getting your beliefs from Rome that I am suggesting is getting your beliefs from the Bible, let no man come between you and the Word. Why do you feel this need to shop around for a denomination you only mostly agree with rather than trying to live the way you 100% agree with? God gave you eyes to see and a brain to think for a reason. If John the Baptist felt like he had to submit to any contemporary sect rather than just preaching the Truth there would be no Christianity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you don’t try to solve theology on your own you’re a mindless drone “shopping” for a religion from man (Rome)

            The Bible isn’t God either.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that’s true. But it is indispensable to any effort to know God, even the Roman Church says as much.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible records that we are to submit to the Church in judgement of faith, which is the "pillar and ground of truth". It reasons that the Bible is not the Church, so proceed from there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The most minimal historical analysis destroys the notion that the Roman church is the Church of Christ. Compared to the other apostolic churches it is the schismatic. But regardless reformed Christians already have a coherent position on this, the church of Christ is a spiritual one that transcends any particular organisation. It is made of the Spirit, not of gold, idols and «tradition”.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do we appeal to the Church, hear the Church, submit to the Church, etc. if it is entirely invisible to human understanding? The Scriptures necessitate a visible body - at what time was this abrogated in the Calvinist tradition?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do we appeal to God, hear God and submit to God if He is invisible to human understanding? You trust the Word, His Son, the one and only mediator. Did John the Baptist need the Temple? No, all he needed was the Word.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because the Church, which has received and holds without error what God has revealed about Himself, teaches us how to approach God, live for God, worship God, etc. according to that revelation. I can know this because it is visible to us, teaching about what is invisible.

            >You trust the Word, His Son, the one and only mediator.
            Yes. He established a Church built upon a visible foundation. A building's walls aren't invisible atop its foundation, as the head doesn't float around, directing an invisible body.

            The comment about John the Baptist seems to be a non sequitur, as he was supported by Jesus Christ & the Holy Ghost, as is everyone in the Church. His graces were particular and special, of course, but he didn't receive a different Holy Ghost than the one sent at Pentecost, nor was he visited by a different Lord than who rules over the Church still today.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the patriarchs would not speak to God for the israelites, the apostles would not pray for their flock, there would be no miracles through mortal men, prophesy
            Then why has the Catholic church made uncountable revisions to its doctrine over the centuries? Was it in error or something?
            >The comment about John the Baptist seems to be a non sequitur, as he was supported by Jesus Christ & the Holy Ghost
            John the Baptist did not need the gold, walls and "tradition" of the Temple because fundamentally that's not what the Kingdom of God is about. He already had the righteous truth before he even met Jesus in the flesh because the real church is a spiritual one. John the Baptist did not need a visible foundation, he did not need walls, all he needed was a mouth to preach and the bounty of nature to sustain him. Neither did Jesus need these and neither did the Apostles, they walked the roads preaching anywhere and everywhere. It was the Sadducees who needed "tradition", gold and incense. And it did not help them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Church has never changed its doctrines.

            There are definitions of doctrine, as we see made by the head of the Church in Acts, which is not a "revision" of any truth. If we considered this so, then the Church would have already erred in the time of the apostles. Unthinkable.

            There are also disciplines set by the Church binding upon Christians, like we see at the same time with the prohibition against eating the blood of animals, or the meat of strangled animals. We know that the Church is not powerless to enforce such things, as we see it done in Scripture, but also not prohibited from lifting these things according to prudence. This is not a doctrine that was revised, as Catholics have been permitted to eat blood for a very long time - Luther, Calvin, or any of their contemporaries did not return to this lost "doctrine", either, as far as I'm aware.

            ---

            John the Baptist was filled with grace by Christ & sanctified by the Holy Ghost extraordinarily, and also died before Our Lord's Passion. He did not need the Temple, nor was he alive during Christ's absence.

            Jesus Christ is the master, founder, and leader of the Church. He does not *need* the Church, but the Church Him.

            The Apostles respected the institution founded upon Simon Peter by Our Lord, and deferred to Peter as their chief in rank.
            Read from here for Scriptural record of this:

            [...]

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Church has never changed its doctrines
            Brother I am going to resist the temptation to call you a bold-faced liar and presume you are just ignorant of the history of your own church. The Roman Church introduces new teachings, discards old ones and revises it’s position on various issues all the time. Papal infallibility for example, is relatively new. Selling indulgences for sins is an old one that was discarded. Even in the past few years Pope Francis has reversed the traditional stance of the excommunication of the divorced. To say the Roman Church has never changed its doctrines is about as credible as Mickey Mouse.
            >Jesus Christ is the master, founder, and leader of the Church. He does not *need* the Church, but the Church Him.
            Exactly. Christ does need the Roman church, He does not need the Baptist church, not the Anglican church, not the Coptic church. The actual Church of Christ is far greater than any worldly temple.
            >The Apostles respected the institution founded upon Simon Peter by Our Lord, and deferred to Peter as their chief in rank.
            The actual historical evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome is non-existent. He was the first bishop of Antioch and even the early Roman church did not recognise singular papal authority from Rome, there were 3 different popes in Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. And it was centuries before anyone interpreted the verse where Simon becomes Peter as having anything to do with the papacy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It seems you didn't even read my reply, or the cross-thread link which gives an explanation with direct Scriptural evidence of Peter's primacy.

            I don't know what to say, because I'd just be repeating myself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If Peter was the infallible authority of the whole church in the 1st century why did Paul openly quarrel with him? Was Paul the first Protestant?
            Galatians 2:11
            >When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong
            A bit on the nose this verse.
            How exactly do you square that with Papal infallibility, or with Peter even being Pope?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because the visible head of the Church, who Christ left us to govern it, is a mortal man, and isn't transformed in to a flawless omniscient (as Christ is) by grace of his office.

            Peter's initial understanding on the matter of circumcision was incorrect, seemingly a fault of imprudence and his particular ministry to the israelites whom he didn't want to alienate. He was corrected by Paul (there's no reason to call this a "quarrel", as Paul was a holy man totally dedicated to Christ), and then defined the true doctrine (no circumcision).

            We therefore see from Scripture that the personal opinion given by Peter was separate from what he gave as definition on behalf of the whole Church.

            This follows even today, where we have these unfortunate confusions from Pope Francis' personal opinions. In the example of the divorce thing, he may say whatever, whenever, but the fact remains that no one in grave sin (like adulterers) may receive Holy Communion without sacrilege, because that is what the Church teaches and has always taught since the beginning. If the pope was defining contradictory doctrine, or taking away from what the Church was always taught, then he, as pastor of the Church, would be bringing it in to error.

            But this has never happened, and never will happen, because Christ gave assurance that it won't.

            By the way, on the 3 popes thing: the word just means father, and was used by a lot more bishops than just the chief pastor of the Church, as we have now. It was eventually limited to just the bishop of Rome as a title of respect, and doesn't have any essential connection to the office beyond just ~1.5k years of connotation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By the time the primacy of the Pope became a hot button issue Alexandria and Antioch (with a few blips of Orthodox/Catholic rule to come later) had long since been lost to the Chalcedonian churches.
            But as for Peter, is he the first Pope and absolute leader of the church who’s rulings must be accepted as infallible or is he just a most holy apostle? Because the fact Paul sees nothing wrong with flat out telling him he’s wrong to his face, even when James is in complete agreement with Peter, tells us the early church did not have such a centralised concept of leadership.
            I notice a lot Catholics never want to give a coherent definition of what exactly «ex cathedra» means. Because Pope Francis has flat out ruled from the chair that divorcees who’s spouses are still alive can in fact receive communion. This is unequivocally a departure from earlier doctrine, and the only recourse is to somehow pretend nothing has changed. Not to mention V2, I’m sorry but the position that from day 1 Catholic doctrine has not changed is just not defensible, it can’t even be argued doctrine hasn’t changed in the last century, not even in the last 23 years. Doctrine is added, discarded and revised constantly as need be.
            Plus, absolutely all of this rests on the assumption that the Roman church headquarter at the Vatican is the one and only original church of Christ. Which falls apart at the slightest historical inquiry, let alone scriptural analysis of what exactly «the Church» is. The Roman church is not even the oldest of the apostolic churches, if anything it is the newest and if it was really the one true church of Christ why did it need blatant lies like the donation of Constantine to justify its authority? Christ said the gates of hell will never prevail against it, that alone utterly rules out the credibility of the Roman church given how many Popes have been straight up evil.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already explained that Peter and his successors are mortal, fallible men occupying an office which heads an infallible Church. You're asking the same questions again.

            >Because Pope Francis has flat out ruled from the chair...
            He hasn't, actually, on any matters of the Church's doctrine as you're suggesting. He's certainly governed the Church in matters like suppressing the Tridentine mass, removing bishops, etc., but nothing to do with doctrine. You're confusing doctrine of the Church (what all Christians are required to believe) with the pope's personal teaching, like how Peter initially said circumcision was required, but was corrected and defined it otherwise. The fact remains that those in grave sin cannot receive Communion without offending God, as has always been taught by the Church.

            And to directly refute your assertions, the last time a ruling was made ex cathedra was in 1950... So not in the last 23 years, or whatever.

            And again, matters of discipline & governance. are not doctrine, or else we'd say the Church of the apostles was revising the truth, recorded doing so in the Scriptures.

            Maybe I'm being unclear by not properly using the word "dogma" when it'd help? Because personal teaching, like Peter's erroneous doctrine on circumcision, can be called doctrine, but not dogma (as can be called the Church's essential doctrines).

            >Christ said the gates of hell will never prevail against it
            Correct. The Church is an institution founded by Our Lord upon St. Peter, united on this visible foundation, holy in its purpose of salvation of men, containing the fullness of the faith for all mankind, and perpetuated for all time by succession of the apostles.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But the Roman church is visibly, obviously, not infallible at even the most cursory glance.
            > but nothing to do with doctrine.
            Is the availability of communion to divorcees a matter of church doctrine? Yes. Has Pope Francis officially reversed the traditional stance on this subject? Yes.
            You can pretend it’s just his non-binding opinion until the end of days. It does not change the objective fact that right now, as we speak, everyday in every country on planet Earth there are divorcees receiving communion in Catholic Churches with full papal approval.
            > And to directly refute your assertions, the last time a ruling was made ex cathedra was in 1950
            What happened to incorruptible unchanging doctrine ever since the lifetime of Christ?
            > Correct
            Why did you quote like 1/10th of an argument and use it as an excuse to pledge your allegiance to the Dan-Brown tier fiction of papist historiography? The gates of hell have, quite demonstrably, utterly swallowed the Roman church whole. If that is the church of Christ then Christ is a liar, which is impossible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Has Pope Francis officially reversed the traditional stance on this subject?
            No.

            It's true God is being offended immensely these days, especially by knowingly obstinate people in His own Church, and people who smugly blaspheme His Church. I hope for your sake that Our Lord is more merciful to the latter kind.

            You're clearly not reading what I'm typing, and unsupported assertions do not constitute arguments, FYI.

            Read this and then get back to me:

            [...]

            Or not, because you won't be able to fight with the Scriptures.
            By the way, I have particular slurs filtered, so I might not be able to see your reply if you continue with that (I happened to unhide this one out of curiosity).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > No
            In his apostolic exhortation ´Amoris Laetitià’ Pope Francis straight up says that a divorcee is not excommunicated and that they may still receive the sacraments. This is an instructional document intended for pastoral leaders in the church, it is not Pope Francis’ personal opinion, it is the official policy since 2016 of how pastoral care for Catholic families should be practiced. I’m sorry if this is problematic for your faith but, objectively, the doctrine has changed.
            > Read this and then get back to me:

            [...]


            This is a wall of text that could have been much more efficiently delivered as just «Matthew 16:18» and refuted just as quickly with the fact that the Catholic interpretation of this is strained beyond belief and there’s little credible evidence Peter was even the first bishop of Rome anyway. And as we already covered earlier Peter wasn’t even infallible in his own lifetime, Paul rebuked him on circumcision. Unless we’re to believe circumcision is not a matter of doctrine either and that was just Peter’s personal opinion (despite the fact that the whole debacle with Paul to begin with was around Peter/James’ stance that, yes, in fact Christians do have to be circumcised).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that you're posing questions about something I explained multiple times to you as if it wasn't even addressed leads me to believe you are incapable of understanding what you read. That is seconded by the fact that a healthy, but brief explanation richly supported by cited Scripture was too long for you for to read, or even address a single point of, besides a quick reference to Matthew, and unsubstantiated assertions. Not to mention the atheistic obstinacy (the institution spanning three millennia has always held this, but I know better because I didn't read about it in a school textbook or something).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thoughts on picrel? Guy in picrel is also Catholic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "God created the Church as the singular channel of grace by which fallen man is restored to a loving relationship with God. This is the essence of the Church. St Robert Bellarmine, a Father of the Sacred Council of Trent and Church Doctor teaches, “The Church is defined as those who have been called out of sin and death into eternal life.” To this we can add that the Church exist in Heaven as well as on earth."

            Also
            "Because the Church is in heaven as well as on earth, it could never cease to exist, but it could cease to be visible to men who need Her saving grace. As evidence of this reality, Saint Robert Bellarmine in his work on the Church Militant entitled, De Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos, confirms that it is the faithful receiving the Sacraments of the Church that makes the Church visible here on earth: “the Church is a gathering of men using the same Sacraments, within the same Faith handed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ.”

            Thoughts on these definitions?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lutheran position of spiritual presence.
            The Lutheran position is not spiritual presence. Read the confession, Article X of the Augsburg confession and Article VI of the Smalcald Articles.
            Lutherans believe that The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christ worshippers are not worshippers of the Most High. So with or without statues you are pagans. Notice how you didnot care about the presence of the Most High Yah. Because the Most High Yah is not who you worship.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are you venerating someone who is not God?
      Ask the israelites, who always piously honored their prophets & patriarchs.

      >Why are you venerating an image as if it is literally the subject?
      Read OP's post. I can hardly believe we are damned for paying respects at the image of a good leader, or giving fond gestures to that of our dear relations - how much more for God's holy saints, who are worthy of even more respect & fondness?

      >That’s exactly what idolatry is.
      Idolatry is serving something in place of God, as you can immediately understanding just by reading the part of Scripture which lays out the Commandments.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What’s with Catholics and constantly conflating the terms honouring/venerating/supplicating/worshipping when all of these mean different things. They honoured the Hebrew patriarchs, they did not pray to them, in fact contacting the dead was considered an evil demonic practice.
        >Read OP's post. I can hardly believe we are damned for paying respects at the image of a good leader,
        Read the Bible, the sin is in paying respects to an image as if it is the thing itself. That except from the Catechism OP posted, far from justifying this, explains exactly how it is Biblical idolatry. Verses available if needed.
        >Idolatry is serving something in place of God,
        Yes like… an image of God.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >conflating the terms honouring/venerating/supplicating/worshipping when all of these mean different things
          Honor & veneration are the same thing.
          Worship is also honor/veneration, but common use of the word today means the unique level due to God alone. (British judges & mayors are not God)
          Supplication is asking for something.

          I didn't confuse anything in my reply, nor did I even bring up supplication.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In your reply you literally did try to pass off the honour accorded to the Hebrew patriarches in the Old Testament as equivalent to praying to Saints. The Old Testament specifically condemns contacting the dead numerous times, thus the equivalency is false.
            >When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. (Isaiah 8:19-20
            On top of this the New Testament specifically lays it down that there is One and only One mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you literally did try to pass off the honour accorded to the Hebrew patriarches in the Old Testament as equivalent to praying to Saints
            No, I didn't. Not even the OP mentions supplication & intercession.

            >The Old Testament specifically condemns contacting the dead numerous times, thus the equivalency is false.
            Yet the saints are alive in heaven, so no worries.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally did
            >>Why are you venerating someone who is not God?
            >Ask the israelites, who always piously honored their prophets & patriarchs.
            Are you going to stand by your word like a man or am I in for some pilpul?
            >Yet the saints are alive in heaven, so no worries.
            And they can’t mediate between you and God. On this the scripture is explicit, only Christ can do that.
            >For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and people. He is the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are misunderstanding what I'm writing. Supplication & intercession is part of the cult of saints as accepted in the Catholic, Eastern, Anglican, Lutheran etc. traditions, but we are talking specifically about veneration. You are assuming I'm trying to argue this other topic through an argument for veneration, but I'm not.

            Yes, Jesus Christ is the sole mediator of our salvation, as the Scriptures say, and the Catholic Church has always taught.
            Even for supplication of grace and favors, all still comes from Our Lord, but if your particular position were the truth, the patriarchs would not speak to God for the israelites, the apostles would not pray for their flock, there would be no miracles through mortal men, prophesy, etc..

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But you did, straight up, respond to contention against OP's post in favour of the veneration of Saints via icons by appealing to the honour devoted upon the prophets and patriarchs by the Hebrews. If you made a statue of Moses and started praying to it the Hebrews would have stoned you to death. That is absolutely a false equivalency and now you are furiously backpedaling.
            >the patriarchs would not speak to God for the israelites, the apostles would not pray for their flock, there would be no miracles through mortal men, prophesy
            A) The prophetic age is over, and it ended with Jesus. Before that the prophets were the mediators, and they could only do so in mortal life. Jesus on the other hand has given man the direct line that will never expire.
            B) The apostles prayed directly to God, their flock was not praying to them to pray to God for them.
            C) The Bible tells us all miracles and prophecy come from God. Peter never worked miracles, God did that, Peter was just the tool He used.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            At least we agree on what the topic is, now.

            >A
            Correct, this is now the age of the Church, the Apostles, of Christ's reign, etc.. That doesn't mean there is no more prophesy, as if we are now blind to the mysteries of the faith - Peter does it after receiving the Holy Ghost (read Acts) and Paul clearly teaches it will be done by Christians without any sort of pending expiry or limitation to his generation (1 Corinthians).

            >C
            You're right in a sense. The saints in heaven, are not some deities of their own independent power, but perfected & immortal in God, lovingly subject to Him. The only remotely related religion that thinks there is some kind of self-sufficient godhood achieved is Mormonism, and that spawned out of Protestant traditions, funnily enough.

            >B
            You're completely wrong here. People went to the apostles for healing, for example, at which the apostles prayed to God and achieved what was requested.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A
            Acts 3:18, hear it from Peter himself
            >What God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled.”
            We already have the fullness of the Law, there will never be another prophet because Jesus already completed their work. And there will never be another but Jesus who may speak to God for the multitudes, for the Bible tells us He is the one and only mediator.
            >C
            That does not engage with the argument I made which is that miracles and prophecy come from none but God. You seem to be agreeing with this position rather than arguing with it. But this renders it futile to cite miracles and prophecy as evidence that any can mediate between man and God but Christ.
            >B
            In Acts Peter does not pray to God to heal people. He lays hands on them and banishes that sickness straight to the shadow realm like an Appalachian Charismatic. The multitudes even believe if his shadow may fall on them that they will be blessed. That is not intercession, that is faith healing.
            Acts 3:6-8
            >Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there will never be another prophet
            Don't tell me St. Paul was lying or mistaken in his epistle here:
            >Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy.

            >miracles and prophecy come from none but God
            Yes, I am agreeing with you. I did say "you're right in a sense". We clearly see by the Scriptures that God chooses to work miracles, for man's benefit, through men. This is intercession as understood by Catholics.

            >In Acts Peter does not pray to God to heal people.
            >Peter kneeling down prayed, and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up.
            Is faith healing not accomplished by God's will and power? Is it not Peter's faith which pleased God to allow these things? It seems we agree on so much, but there are certain terms and twists you're stuck in that prevent you from accepting it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In that verse Paul never uses the word «prophet», being one who speaks to God for the multitudes as you used it earlier. The New Testament is clear that only Jesus can do that now. What Paul is talking about is prophecy, divine revelations of the future, obviously this still happens given Paul himself and John of Patmos.
            >This is intercession as understood by Catholics.
            It takes an extremely strained reading to go from «miracles come from God» to «I should not pray directly to God but rather to Mary to pray to God for me», when the Bible straight up tells us to pray to God in the name of the Son because God already knows what we want. If He won’t oblige you He won’t oblige you.
            > It seems we agree on so much, but there are certain terms and twists you're stuck in that prevent you from accepting it.
            Yeah, at heart I’m an ecumenicist and I think the commonalities between Christians transcend any particular denomination. But what I am saying is Peter in Acts literally doesn’t heal by prayer on the behalf of another, he does so by the laying of hands. It’s just not an example of intercession but of faith healing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A prophet is one who prophesies. To prophesy is to speak by divine inspiration, of which telling the future is a part.
            Yes, "Prophet" can be understood as a distinct term for those particular men who proceeded & foretold Christ, but we both know the difference, so there's no cause for dispute here.

            >It takes an extremely strained reading...
            Peter & John should have rebuked the lame man for asking them for healing instead of only God, then. They didn't, which shows us (among many other instances) that the intercession by men is acceptable, pious, & holy.

            >It’s just not an example of intercession but of faith healing
            Can you explain as strictly as possible what faith healing is? Even just copy/pasting a definition is fine, I'm trying to figure out what the difference between your conception of it and "praying to God to heal someone that asked you".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay then we can agree. God still speaks through visions and revelations, AKA prophecy, but no longer are there chosen prophets who can speak to God for us like Moses, Elijah or what Joseph Smith claimed to be. In terms of man communicating himself to God the only way is through Christ.
            >Peter & John should have rebuked the lame man for asking them for healing instead of only God, then. They didn't, which shows us (among many other instances) that the intercession by men is acceptable, pious, & holy
            My argument against prayer to any but God is not that it shows insufficient faith in one’s own holiness, it is good for one to be humble and not self-assured of salvation and so to look outward at the holiness in others, especially our revered forerunners. My argument is that the Bible specifically tells us not to do it (Isaiah 8:19-20) especially not via the medium of images (Romans 1:20-23). If you meet John IRL by all means ask him to lay hands on you.
            >Can you explain as strictly as possible what faith healing is?
            I’m specifically talking about the laying of hands as American charismatics do (probably because they took it straight from Acts). Putting your faith in God’s righteous servants is one thing, praying to them and venerating images of them is another.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In terms of man communicating himself to God the only way is through Christ.
            And Catholics agree with you here, as He is the head, master, and ruler of the Church. There are no "alternative" avenues to salvation, holiness, and help but by God.

            We both agree that God works through His servants, and that holy men especially are most powerful with and by God.

            It seems the main contention we have is whether or not those holy men *in heaven* can hear and answer us according to God's will, as there is no doubt that holy men on earth do that (it is recorded in Scripture, and happens even today).

            The book of Revelation shows us without a doubt that the souls of the saints are alive, perfectly aware of earth's events, have access to God, and are praying to Him for their Christian brethren.

            The question then becomes if we are *allowed* to ask the souls in heaven for aid. That part of Isaiah rebukes those who go to unholy & superstitious means for help, not the righteous & living, triumphant Christian brethren who are in heaven with God. There is nowhere in scripture denying this pious act, just as no one was told not to entreat the apostles for help. We also see plenty of examples of supplication to the departed saints even in the pre-Nicene era of the Church, particularly to the apostles, the Virgin Mary, and to martyrs, who were all in heaven without a doubt among those early Christians.

            https://i.imgur.com/3hgMPun.jpeg

            Thoughts on picrel? Guy in picrel is also Catholic

            He's delusional, and de facto not Catholic as he's cut himself off from communion with Christ's universal church.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He's delusional, and de facto not Catholic as he's cut himself off from communion with Christ's universal church.

            He believes the current Vatican isn't the universal church and says the Catholic church is the mystical body of Christ. He mentions that St. Robert Bellarmine defines the church as those who are called out of sin and death into eternal life. He also said that even if every Catholic died on Earth that the church would exist because it exists in heaven.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you agree with this?

            " The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints holds us to believe that Saint Peter, as well as the other Apostles, are living members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and as such are not replaced by the generation of their office, but their particular office is represented (made visible) here on earth. Thus, the hierarchy in heaven is made visible on earth when that which is particular to each throne is universalized."

            also

            "Our Lord promised to St. Peter and the other Apostles that they would sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel, not govern them! Knowing this, is it any wonder that modern bishops have become CEOs of a corporation instead of the spiritual Fathers of the elect?"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >C) The Bible tells us all miracles and prophecy come from God. Peter never worked miracles, God did that, Peter was just the tool He used.

            This is the same with the saints though. The saints got their powers from God and God worked through them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, so show your faith by praying to God alone as the disciples did.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The prophetic age is over, and it ended with Jesus.
            In hebrew times, an israelite could go to a prophet and ask God questions and that prophet would channel the spirit of God and talk through him and give answers. And there were many of them, we inly know of the big names who gave important prophecies, but there were many many prophets who we do not know about. So if Jesus replaced this then who is the modern day equivalent of prophets? Do you really think the people of God do not still have prophets who they can go talk to and inquire about God?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says the one and only direct line to God is Jesus. Anyone telling you they can speak to God for you is selling you snake oil. Stay away from the Mormon missionaries.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did the day of resurrection happened yet? If not then how would the saints be alive in heaven? They died and their bodies are buried, awaiting the day of resurrection. Elijah taken to heaven wouldn't have been a big deal if all prophets were there. Yet elijah is the only prophet in heaven and he was take alive with his whole body. There's no record in OT of a dead man in heaven, not a single one. Never have Abraham or Israel or David been considered to be in heaven. Neither Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah have been said to be in heaven or have they visited anyone after death.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you sincerely arguing with people who are paid to subvert scripture?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you sincerely arguing with people who are paid to subvert scripture?

            Matthew 27:52

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So where does that say I need to worship a pedo that worships Lucifer?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So the bodies of dead saints resurrected when Jesus died? before he himself resurrected? I imagine a bunch dead people walking around would have been a big deal. Jesus resurrecting wouldn't have been surprising at all if a bunch saints had already resurrected the moment he died.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Did the day of resurrection happened yet?
            No. That day is that of the bodily resurrection, at which heaven & earth are remade for all time. Right now, the faithful dead are in heaven in spirit alone (apart from the select few bodily assumed), as we can read in the Scriptures:
            >And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.

            Elijah, Enoch, and Moses were assumed in to heaven as far as we know from the OT. Elijah & Enoch were directly stated as assumed, and Moses appeared with Christ at His Transfiguration, which makes the matter clear (for if he wasn't assumed, he would be waiting in Sheol with the righteous dead before Christ's Passion).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Show me in the old testament a dead man's spirit in heaven. Moses's body was buried so he cannot be in the same place as Enoch and Elijah who are alive with bodies. Jesus claims Elijah visited him with Moses but he also said that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated, so it cannot be both. Reincarnation is a pagan belief. Elijah never died so how can he reincarnate? Why would God save him from death and give him immortality in heaven for defeating Asherah and Baal and then send him to be born again and get beheaded by a wicked queen? He defeated Jezebel and God did not let her lay a finger on him but would then let Herods wife just behead him?

            Hesus is a liar, Elijah was not John. God spared him from death as a reward, he will never let him experience death.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I assumed you were a confused Christian, not an outright apostate or something. Post hidden, you're not going to receive any further replies.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The new testament is Satan's work. Or do you really believe reincarnation is real? If you value your life and fear the judgement of God I suggest you read the old testament so you learn about the path of righteousness, which is the only path that leads to him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity has no concept of reincarnation. And you do not need to die to be reborn, God can do anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Gospels say John the baptists was the reincarnation of Elijah.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The gospels say John the Baptist IS Elijah. But reincarnation is a completely alien concept to Abrahamic metaphysics. It does not imply Elijah died, it means God sent him back.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lots of israelites believe in reincarnation. I don't just mean laity. I mean Rabbis and learned clergy. They talk about Kabbalah. They say you must keep reincarnating until you've practiced all tenets of the israeli faith.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jews don't believe the Bible. This is the same as bringing up Hindus. All pagan religions believe in reincarnation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s actually very interesting and I want to know more.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These Rabbis say you have a life mission too

            Jews don't believe the Bible. This is the same as bringing up Hindus. All pagan religions believe in reincarnation.

            They get it from the Kabbalah and Zohar.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pharisee-tier pilpul

      There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

      He types in all caps. He isn’t a serious post.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >veneration of icons

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Romans 1:20-23
    Venerating an icon as if it is the subject itself is explicitly condemned in the Bible

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Judaism for gentiles. Take the pagan traditions of old Rome take Judaism out of it create a syncretic religion 2000 years latter make it Noahide kosher compliant.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When did the idea of honouring an image as though its prototype become a widespread phenomenon for the Christian church? During the 4th century AD, or some time later, perhaps somewhat before the Iconoclastic Controversy?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your second guess is in the right territory. The shift occurred sometime during the middle of the 7th century AD, or perhaps later on. Early on during the 600s, you had the Catholic Pope even speak against idolatry in terms which would have been familiar with the later 8th and 9th century Iconoclasts and those who had closely-related views.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your second guess is in the right territory. The shift occurred sometime during the middle of the 7th century AD, or perhaps later on. Early on during the 600s, you had the Catholic Pope even speak against idolatry in terms which would have been familiar with the later 8th and 9th century Iconoclasts and those who had closely-related views.

      Opinions were obviously torn, hence the need for the Council's definition.
      Augustine in the early 400s writes about monuments set up to particular martyrs at which they were honored & supplicated, without any mention of these being new.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dude, let me venerate this icon of Mary
    >the prayer passes through the image to Mary who passes it to her son Jesus who passes it to God the Father

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Goddess worship; the religion of the prostitute of Babylon.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it
    lol this is literally what the Roman pagans told the israelites

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The pagan gods had powers on their own and could have contradictory wills. There was no one actively supplying them the powers all the time. God supplies powers and abilities at all times.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Catholic church is the mystical body of Christ. St. Robert Bellarmine defines the church as those who are called out of sin and death into eternal life.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh catechism

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants thinking veneration is worship shows that they only venerate God

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does this make some Christians seethe?
    Well, anything that is disobedient to God should make any Christian repulsed.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just imagine if you will for a moment that Abrahamic religion wasn't an OOGA BOOGA hold over from the stone age

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *