-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
According to the Catholic encyclopedia worship of icons is done and permissible . It is a bit lawyerly and filled with jargon that will make Reagan MacNeil’s head spin . The same type of entire is made for Saints. So please don’t say Catholics don’t worship icons images .
The principles of image-worship
Lastly something must be said about Catholic principles concerning the worship of sacred images. The Latin Cultus sacrarum imaginum may quite well be translated (as it always was in the past) "worship of holy images", and "image-worshipper" is a convenient term for cultor imaginum — eikonodoulos, as opposed to eikonoklastes(image-breaker). Worship by no means implies only the supreme adoration that may be given only to God. It is a general word denoting some more or less high degree of reverence and honour, an acknowledgment of worth, like the German Verehrung("with my body I thee worship") in the marriage service; English city companies are "worshipful", a magistrate is "Your worship", and so on. We need not then hesitate to speak of our worship of images; though no doubt we shall often be called upon to explain the term.
We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at all. The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as it only promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments. On the other hand, as far as it is positive law, it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9). Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on. The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church. So in the First Commandment we must distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me", "Thou shall not adorethem nor serve them" — which are eternal natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", etc. In whatever sense the archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing; therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of marrying one's brother's widow.
Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the subject, Christiansare bound firstly by the natural law that forbids us to give to any creature the honourdue to God alone, and forbids the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absolute worship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of the Church The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up the essential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only, acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always; see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous. So in English by adoration we now always understand the latreiaof the Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council. From this adoration the councildistinguishes respect and honourable reverence (aspasmos kaitimetike proskynesis) such as may be paid to any venerable or great person-the emperor, patriarch, and so on. A fortiori may and should such reverence be paid to the saints who reign with God. The words proskynesis (as distinct from latreia) and douleia became the technical ones for this inferior honour. Proskynesis (which oddly enough means etymologically the same thing as adoratio — ad + os, kynein, to kiss) corresponds in Christian use to the Latin veneratio; douleia would generally be translated cultus. In English we use veneration, reverence, cult, worship for these ideas.
Blessings
Bill
The principles of image-worship
Lastly something must be said about Catholic principles concerning the worship of sacred images. The Latin Cultus sacrarum imaginum may quite well be translated (as it always was in the past) "worship of holy images", and "image-worshipper" is a convenient term for cultor imaginum — eikonodoulos, as opposed to eikonoklastes(image-breaker). Worship by no means implies only the supreme adoration that may be given only to God. It is a general word denoting some more or less high degree of reverence and honour, an acknowledgment of worth, like the German Verehrung("with my body I thee worship") in the marriage service; English city companies are "worshipful", a magistrate is "Your worship", and so on. We need not then hesitate to speak of our worship of images; though no doubt we shall often be called upon to explain the term.
We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at all. The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as it only promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments. On the other hand, as far as it is positive law, it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9). Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on. The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church. So in the First Commandment we must distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me", "Thou shall not adorethem nor serve them" — which are eternal natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", etc. In whatever sense the archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing; therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of marrying one's brother's widow.
Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the subject, Christiansare bound firstly by the natural law that forbids us to give to any creature the honourdue to God alone, and forbids the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absolute worship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of the Church The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up the essential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only, acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always; see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous. So in English by adoration we now always understand the latreiaof the Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council. From this adoration the councildistinguishes respect and honourable reverence (aspasmos kaitimetike proskynesis) such as may be paid to any venerable or great person-the emperor, patriarch, and so on. A fortiori may and should such reverence be paid to the saints who reign with God. The words proskynesis (as distinct from latreia) and douleia became the technical ones for this inferior honour. Proskynesis (which oddly enough means etymologically the same thing as adoratio — ad + os, kynein, to kiss) corresponds in Christian use to the Latin veneratio; douleia would generally be translated cultus. In English we use veneration, reverence, cult, worship for these ideas.
Blessings
Bill
I find it ironic how this is translated to mean "worship of the icons or statues themselves" such actions are considered idolatrous and condemned in the Catholic Church the worship of the image is seen as worship of the represented for example in some writings it is expressed that the crucifix is to be adored by means of latria which is the form of worship due to God alone this does not mean we are to worship graven images rather it means we are using the image of the crucifix as an icon and the image that is being represented is what is to be worshipped the image in this case would be Christ. Again as I stated earlier to deny that God has an image would be to deny that Christ is the image of God to deny the use of icons and statues in this sense is the equivalent of denying that Christ is the living image to deny such means would be well non Christian.
The central pillar of Protestantism is Justification by Faith Alone. (JBF)
The appearance of consensus ( on the issue of justification) created by the JDDJ " The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification " is due to a play on semantics. ( A play on words )
The JDDJ amounts to an abandonment of the reformation's concept of JBF (Justification by Faith Alone)
There is much more to this very small portion that has been adressed.
The appearance of consensus ( on the issue of justification) created by the JDDJ " The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification " is due to a play on semantics. ( A play on words )
The JDDJ amounts to an abandonment of the reformation's concept of JBF (Justification by Faith Alone)
There is much more to this very small portion that has been adressed.
I just checked the JDDJ and your are right. They have dodged the key distintive of justification by grace through faith, which is imputed righteousness -- the sinner is declared "NOT GUILTY" since Christ's righteousness is impute to him by God's grace through the finished work of Christ. Here is what JDDJ says:
11. Justification is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Rom 3:23-25; Acts 13:39; Lk 18:14), liberation from the dominating power of sin and death (Rom 5:12-21) and from the curse of the law (Gal3:10-14). It is acceptance into communion with God: already now, but then fully in God's coming kingdom (Rom 5:1f). It unites with Christ and with his death and resurrection (Rom6:5). It occurs in the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism and incorporation into the one body (Rom 8:1f, 9f; I Cor 12:12f). All this is from God alone, for Christ's sake, by grace, through faith in "the gospel of God's Son" (Rom 1:1-3).
11. Justification is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Rom 3:23-25; Acts 13:39; Lk 18:14), liberation from the dominating power of sin and death (Rom 5:12-21) and from the curse of the law (Gal3:10-14). It is acceptance into communion with God: already now, but then fully in God's coming kingdom (Rom 5:1f). It unites with Christ and with his death and resurrection (Rom6:5). It occurs in the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism and incorporation into the one body (Rom 8:1f, 9f; I Cor 12:12f). All this is from God alone, for Christ's sake, by grace, through faith in "the gospel of God's Son" (Rom 1:1-3).
This is just a small portion of what the adversary has crafted , if we do not know what we stand for all can be lost. That is why it is of much importance to pray & study The Word of God , & to have complete understanding of Justification by Faith Alone.
For many have been seduced to drink the wine of babylon.
For many have been seduced to drink the wine of babylon.
D
Then, please, explain purgatory/limbo, indulgences, "fasting" turning into eating fish on Fridays, and then only on Fridays in Lent, Lent, Ash Wednesday, the Stations of the Cross, rosaries, ex cathedra, annulments vs. divorces, and how they came to be that for a mere $3,000 given to a church, you too can pretend you were never married before, and have your kids wonder for the rest of their lives how they aren't bastards, because they distinctly remember growing up in a family with a mother and father who were married, etc.
Limbo was never a doctrine in Catholicism nor is it the same thing as Purgatory "Limbo of the infants" was theological speculation most modern Catholics do not hold this view on the same note Limbo of the patriarchs did exist at one point in time it no longer does it is simply a rewording of "Abraham's bossom" or "sheol" which was a paradisial holding place for the saints before Christ opened the gates of Heaven in times of old all of the Old Testament saints stayed here at one point in time. Purgatory on the other hand is a "purging" of "veinal" unholy attachments that the saints had in their lives before they enter heaven of where the saved go before heaven that still had worldly pleasures or did not experience suffering for their sins this is very much supported in the scriptures when we see Revelation 21:27 where it teaches us that nothing unclean of any sort can enter heaven essentially one must be perfect to enter heaven. We know that most if not virtually all of the saints did hold on to some form of sin for most of their lives as they are human and have short comings on the same note God's grace which is received through faith and the sacraments helps us move beyond such inclinations is how we can make such attempts on earth but if we fall into sin that is not damning in nature and we keep the faith we are not destined for hell rather we just need to be purified. This does not reject Christ's redeeming work rather it affirms it because if Christ's sacrifice had not taken place such a graceful period for the future saints could not exist.
As for fasting there has always been various levels and strictness of fasting even back in Judaism the word fast means to limit ones amount so to simply eat fish on a Friday would not be not be a fast rather it would be abstinence from meat the church affirms this fasting and how it should take place and the stridency of the practice varies from person to person and how much one eats and strict fasting is still a required practice on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday the reform of the traditional fasting schedule was due to confusion mainly regarding new converts there is no sin in reforming tradition as such a practice was never doctrinal. On the same note many traditional Catholics and members of the clergy continue to practice more traditional fasting schedules.
Indulgences are a subject that is heavily misunderstood "selling indulgences" although it did take place was never a practice instituted by the church. An indulgence is received by saying certain prayers and doing certain chartable works all it means is that assuming the person who received the indulgence dies in a state of grace it could count as a means of receiving absolution for smaller sins they could hypothetically have one end up in purgatory nothing wrong with that. Where the confusion lies and how sales of such did begin to take place is that in the late middle ages there where indulgences offered for donating to the construction of cathedrals nothing wrong with this inherently but certain bad priests such as Johannes Tetzel the man who Martin Luther confronted did indeed abuse the practice and sell them for personal monetary value. Such abuses have long since been reprimanded and as a result indulgences are no longer offered for anything that involves money to avoid confusion and future abuses. On the same note it would be rather short sided to point this out as a "Catholic doctrinal" error when there are modern day protestant ministers who practice the same evil that people such as Tetzel did 500 years ago people such as prosperity gospel preachers and televangelists such as Joel Olsten come to mind who make claims that paying for their 1,000,000$ home or having money in ones own pocket should make one more certain of their own salvation.
Stations of the cross is a meditative devotional prayer that is practiced among certain protestant communities as well it is simply a commemoration of the last few hours of the life of Jesus. The rosary is a very sacred set of prayers that is meditative in nature it is based around meditation on the life of Christ and reciting of various scriptural passages as well as reciting various prayers that are very important to Catholic spirituality (the hail Mary, our father, glory be, among others). Ex Cathedra is doctrinal proclamation of explanation generally done during or near an ecumenical council this doesn't happen very often and has not happened since the 1950s such proclamations are believed to be infallible and equal in authority as the scriptures themselves infallible proclamations are not believed to be the pope speaking his mind rather God speaking to the church through him see Matthew 23 Christ makes a case in point regarding the seat of Moses and the Pharisees in regards to a similar concept in Judaism.
Divorce is seen as morally wrong in Catholicism because it is the ending of a sacred union but it is also noted that in certain situations certain issues arise such as adultery or abuse so it is not "pretending" that a the people never married rather it is the removeal of the sacramental nature of the relationship due to the toxic nature generally in most countries nowadays to receive a religious annulment in the Catholic Church one must receive a civil divorce beforehand.
As for fasting there has always been various levels and strictness of fasting even back in Judaism the word fast means to limit ones amount so to simply eat fish on a Friday would not be not be a fast rather it would be abstinence from meat the church affirms this fasting and how it should take place and the stridency of the practice varies from person to person and how much one eats and strict fasting is still a required practice on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday the reform of the traditional fasting schedule was due to confusion mainly regarding new converts there is no sin in reforming tradition as such a practice was never doctrinal. On the same note many traditional Catholics and members of the clergy continue to practice more traditional fasting schedules.
Indulgences are a subject that is heavily misunderstood "selling indulgences" although it did take place was never a practice instituted by the church. An indulgence is received by saying certain prayers and doing certain chartable works all it means is that assuming the person who received the indulgence dies in a state of grace it could count as a means of receiving absolution for smaller sins they could hypothetically have one end up in purgatory nothing wrong with that. Where the confusion lies and how sales of such did begin to take place is that in the late middle ages there where indulgences offered for donating to the construction of cathedrals nothing wrong with this inherently but certain bad priests such as Johannes Tetzel the man who Martin Luther confronted did indeed abuse the practice and sell them for personal monetary value. Such abuses have long since been reprimanded and as a result indulgences are no longer offered for anything that involves money to avoid confusion and future abuses. On the same note it would be rather short sided to point this out as a "Catholic doctrinal" error when there are modern day protestant ministers who practice the same evil that people such as Tetzel did 500 years ago people such as prosperity gospel preachers and televangelists such as Joel Olsten come to mind who make claims that paying for their 1,000,000$ home or having money in ones own pocket should make one more certain of their own salvation.
Stations of the cross is a meditative devotional prayer that is practiced among certain protestant communities as well it is simply a commemoration of the last few hours of the life of Jesus. The rosary is a very sacred set of prayers that is meditative in nature it is based around meditation on the life of Christ and reciting of various scriptural passages as well as reciting various prayers that are very important to Catholic spirituality (the hail Mary, our father, glory be, among others). Ex Cathedra is doctrinal proclamation of explanation generally done during or near an ecumenical council this doesn't happen very often and has not happened since the 1950s such proclamations are believed to be infallible and equal in authority as the scriptures themselves infallible proclamations are not believed to be the pope speaking his mind rather God speaking to the church through him see Matthew 23 Christ makes a case in point regarding the seat of Moses and the Pharisees in regards to a similar concept in Judaism.
Divorce is seen as morally wrong in Catholicism because it is the ending of a sacred union but it is also noted that in certain situations certain issues arise such as adultery or abuse so it is not "pretending" that a the people never married rather it is the removeal of the sacramental nature of the relationship due to the toxic nature generally in most countries nowadays to receive a religious annulment in the Catholic Church one must receive a civil divorce beforehand.
In order to have a discussion on some of these matters you mention I would like to establish a common understanding of the terms. Let's start with "salvation". Salvation from my point of view is deliverance from the power of evil and sin. Is that how you would define "salvation"?
If so, then I would like to respectfully disagree with your comment that salvation only comes from the church. The Catechism (the extra biblical doctrines you mention) specifically reads "Salvation comes from God alone".(169) Furthermore, Jn 3:5, 1 Tim 2:4, and Mk 16:16 all say Baptism is necessary for salvation. So if we want salvation from God we have to ask for forgiveness and be baptized. That can be in a church or not. But the Catholic church does not say salvation comes from the Church.
If so, then I would like to respectfully disagree with your comment that salvation only comes from the church. The Catechism (the extra biblical doctrines you mention) specifically reads "Salvation comes from God alone".(169) Furthermore, Jn 3:5, 1 Tim 2:4, and Mk 16:16 all say Baptism is necessary for salvation. So if we want salvation from God we have to ask for forgiveness and be baptized. That can be in a church or not. But the Catholic church does not say salvation comes from the Church.
none of those verses say that u cant read a bible for yourself.
acts 8:30-31 does say that he doesnt understand unless someone guides him.
but its because hes having difficulty connecting isaiah's lamb to Christ. then he is told and gets it.
even in that verse it doesnt say we need a catholic church to interpret it to us. thats a big mistake to follow a bunch of guys who contradict direct commandments of the bible.
acts 8:30-31 does say that he doesnt understand unless someone guides him.
but its because hes having difficulty connecting isaiah's lamb to Christ. then he is told and gets it.
even in that verse it doesnt say we need a catholic church to interpret it to us. thats a big mistake to follow a bunch of guys who contradict direct commandments of the bible.
E
I think this is a weak defenition.
A person needs saved when they are in a situation where they will be killed if they are not rescued (the gree word translated saved means rescued)
Being delivered from the power and evil of sin is a by product of salvation, but that alone does not mean you are saved.
Being saved means we are delivered from the penalty of sin. Any other defenition would be lacking.
Other than that I agree with what you said. Salvation is not by the church, it is by the blood. By the cross. The church is just tasked with delivering that message. By entering the gates of hell, and being used by God to rescue people out from condemnation, removing them from the kingdom of satan, and bring them into the kingdom of God.
A person needs saved when they are in a situation where they will be killed if they are not rescued (the gree word translated saved means rescued)
Being delivered from the power and evil of sin is a by product of salvation, but that alone does not mean you are saved.
Being saved means we are delivered from the penalty of sin. Any other defenition would be lacking.
Other than that I agree with what you said. Salvation is not by the church, it is by the blood. By the cross. The church is just tasked with delivering that message. By entering the gates of hell, and being used by God to rescue people out from condemnation, removing them from the kingdom of satan, and bring them into the kingdom of God.