A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Thinkingstuff]

There was with them their priest from the local parish as well as a few seminary grads. These people were not crazy. Although I think the Holy Spirit worked in an unusal way to expose what they were. In other words, their behavior was odd, but the Lord worked in a way so that it was obvious to all what they are.

The point that can be taken from this, is that neither you or I can judge what Catholicism is by the behavior of a few Catholics we know. We must judge the system by its precepts and judgments and doctrines.

Such as Dr. Walter does on these boards, or a James White or others in history who have dealt directly be papal teaching and not how some individual catholic works it out.

Or should I go on to judge the papacy by the satanism and voodooism of the papacy in South America that I witnesses in Mexico and Venezuala and Belize when I was there?

I have no idea. I've been over the Catachism of the Catholic Church which is their magisterium to the faithful and never once with in its texts do I see pray to the Pope. Here is what is does say regarding the Pope

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Which deals with the Pope being the symbol of unity (Ie statments regarding communion with Rome would fall under this) and have absolute powers over the whole church administratively.

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

which has to do with how the pope is only infallible when "pronouncing in a "Definitive manner" with regards to the teaching of faith and morals.

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Has to do with binding and loosing with the Apostolic College. Binding and loosing is understood from the Jewish context of Binding and Loosing with regard to Torah. Pope does not act independently on this.

But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

Because the Pope has ultimate administrative authority does not annul the authority of the bishops who are in communion with Rome (again the symbol of unity)

"One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college."39 The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.40 In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.

a reitteration of unity and collegate workings.

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

A further explination of infallibility.

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

self explanitory

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication

That pretty much sums up there doctrne regarding the papacy. Nothing about praying to the Pope.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have no idea. I've been over the Catachism of the Catholic Church which is their magisterium to the faithful and never once with in its texts do I see pray to the Pope. Here is what is does say regarding the Pope Which deals with the Pope being the symbol of unity (Ie statments regarding communion with Rome would fall under this) and have absolute powers over the whole church administratively. which has to do with how the pope is only infallible when "pronouncing in a "Definitive manner" with regards to the teaching of faith and morals. Has to do with binding and loosing with the Apostolic College. Binding and loosing is understood from the Jewish context of Binding and Loosing with regard to Torah. Pope does not act independently on this. Because the Pope has ultimate administrative authority does not annul the authority of the bishops who are in communion with Rome (again the symbol of unity) a reitteration of unity and collegate workings. A further explination of infallibility. self explanitory That pretty much sums up there doctrne regarding the papacy. Nothing about praying to the Pope.

You went to some length to prove that official papal teaching doesn't teach praying to the pope. When, neither I was, or anyone for that matter, asserting that the teaching of the papacy teaches such a thing. But worship of the pope is practiced, as well as worship of mary, saints, as bowing down to images of them, the popes, and mary, et.

And of course, the cry rises up...we are not worshipping them but venerating them, and even though we pray to saints and to mary, and bow down before their images, and bow to images of popes, doesn't mean its worship.

Yes, we all heard those arguments before, and sane people look at that, and blink their eyes and sigh. We know better. Either papists are convinced that everyone besides them are the greatest of fools and mentally stupid, or their are completely decieved and believe what they are saying to us...(probably a little of both).

I had the ability to illustrate this in the education of my children by showing them Hindus bowing to their idols, lighting candles to them, offering incense, and food...then showing them papists doing the same things to idols of "mary" and the saints, and to crucifixes, and other such abominations.

I further showed them the papists bowing down and worshipping physical objects of wafers and wine and explained to them why.

They saw no difference between paganism and popism, but rather considered popery worse in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus, and postured itself as the true Church when in fact it is the false church, the anti-christ.

 

[Zenas]

I was invited to a Roman Catholic home to have a discussion, which actually turned out to be an inqusition of sorts. I sat there, defending the Bible in the face of countless idols litering this man's home...and most appalling of all, to watch this man's wife, bow her head and pray to the pope.

Which pope was she praying to?

 

[DHK]

You take Catholics who pray to the Pope seriously? You're right that is idolatry and those Catholics are wakos. My Father is a serious Catholic and doesn't own one statue. He likes to wear an oversized crucifix though. And a Catholic actually pointing to a statue saying they were their gods? These people weren't Catholic. They were crazy. I don't know any Catholic who does that. Are you sure they weren't Old Catholic Church based out of Ultrich?

Every crucifix, whether hung on a wall or attached at the end of a rosary is an idol, a statue if you will. It is an image made of metal or wood.
What of the stations of the cross. Does he bow down before them? Does he pray before them? Is that not praying before an idol, or idolatry?

 

[BillySunday1935]

Every crucifix, whether hung on a wall or attached at the end of a rosary is an idol, a statue if you will. It is an image made of metal or wood.
What of the stations of the cross. Does he bow down before them? Does he pray before them? Is that not praying before an idol, or idolatry?

This is utter pap - in my humble opinion that is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Every crucifix, whether hung on a wall or attached at the end of a rosary is an idol, a statue if you will. It is an image made of metal or wood.
What of the stations of the cross. Does he bow down before them? Does he pray before them? Is that not praying before an idol, or idolatry?

Are you serious DHK? A crucifix, the pictoral representations of the stations of the cross. They are just that pictoral representation of the attoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. These are no different than and image on tv or a painting. As far as praying to. My father never prayed to a crucifix. My father does not pray to the stations of the cross. What he does do is pray to God and reflect and meditate on the stories and the greater mystery that these images represent. I can look at a painting which reminds me of (one of my favorites) Jesus praying in the garden at Gethsemane. It brings me to reflect on how Jesus was anxios about his future suffering enough that he sweated blood. How as a sinless person he begged God to take away the up coming suffering that we would have to endure. And how in obedience to the will of God the Father, Jesus submitted himself to a terrible death for our sakes. Now is that praying to the picture? God forbid! But the picture does cause me to reflect and pray to God.

 

[BillySunday1935]

snip...

I was invited to a Roman Catholic home to have a discussion, which actually turned out to be an inqusition of sorts. I sat there, defending the Bible in the face of countless idols litering this man's home...and most appalling of all, to watch this man's wife, bow her head and pray to the pope.

I have not witnessed more disgusting idolatry than that in my whole life. At least the idolators of the far east do not mix their demon woship with a Christian name or garb.

But these gave worship openly and blatently by offering prayer to the pope in front of me, and pointing to their idols and images and saying they were their gods.

If what you have said here is true, then these people were not Catholic christians - plain and simple. However, I do find this statement hard to believe.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You went to some length to prove that official papal teaching doesn't teach praying to the pope. When, neither I was, or anyone for that matter, asserting that the teaching of the papacy teaches such a thing. But worship of the pope is practiced, as well as worship of mary, saints, as bowing down to images of them, the popes, and mary, et.

And of course, the cry rises up...we are not worshipping them but venerating them, and even though we pray to saints and to mary, and bow down before their images, and bow to images of popes, doesn't mean its worship.

Yes, we all heard those arguments before, and sane people look at that, and blink their eyes and sigh. We know better. Either papists are convinced that everyone besides them are the greatest of fools and mentally stupid, or their are completely decieved and believe what they are saying to us...(probably a little of both).

I had the ability to illustrate this in the education of my children by showing them Hindus bowing to their idols, lighting candles to them, offering incense, and food...then showing them papists doing the same things to idols of "mary" and the saints, and to crucifixes, and other such abominations.

I further showed them the papists bowing down and worshipping physical objects of wafers and wine and explained to them why.

They saw no difference between paganism and popism, but rather considered popery worse in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus, and postured itself as the true Church when in fact it is the false church, the anti-christ.

If there are catholics that practice praying to the pope. regarding the saints as gods. Worshiping physical objects then they are not catholic but they are pagans in catholic clothing. I have not met any of these. And if there are catholics practicing voodoo with their catholicism. They are not catholic but they are pagan. These again are not catholic but pagan if such do these things and it goes against their very magisterium. So its like a baptist saying he's born again comming to the services but practicing Tarot, at home. This person is not a christian.

As far as crucifixes. They don't bother me. They represent specifically Christ attoning sacrifice which is good to remember when we are tempted by sin. I've heard the stupid debates of the puritans about the empty cross. Its stupid. A crucifix represents the attoning sacrifice. and empty cross represents christianity in general (and for some the risen lord). The dove represents the holy spirit. We have pictoral representations of biblical stories all over the place and thank God. They give witness to the Gospel message.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You went to some length to prove that official papal teaching doesn't teach praying to the pope. When, neither I was, or anyone for that matter, asserting that the teaching of the papacy teaches such a thing. But worship of the pope is practiced, as well as worship of mary, saints, as bowing down to images of them, the popes, and mary, et.

And of course, the cry rises up...we are not worshipping them but venerating them, and even though we pray to saints and to mary, and bow down before their images, and bow to images of popes, doesn't mean its worship.

Well, bowing before it doesn't mean worship to it and that's been proven here many times.

Genesis 19:1
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

Yes, we all heard those arguments before, and sane people look at that, and blink their eyes and sigh. We know better. Either papists are convinced that everyone besides them are the greatest of fools and mentally stupid, or their are completely decieved and believe what they are saying to us...(probably a little of both).

I had the ability to illustrate this in the education of my children by showing them Hindus bowing to their idols, lighting candles to them, offering incense, and food...then showing them papists doing the same things to idols of "mary" and the saints, and to crucifixes, and other such abominations.

One of these things is not like the other.

I further showed them the papists bowing down and worshipping physical objects of wafers and wine and explained to them why.

If Jesus came before you, would you not fall on your face before him? Is Jesus present during your worship services and do you fall on your knees during worship? If not, then perhaps you should find a church where He is present.

They saw no difference between paganism and popism, but rather considered popery worse in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus, and postured itself as the true Church when in fact it is the false church, the anti-christ.

Considering the source, I can see why they came to that conclusion. Anyone can teach the little "tabula rasas" anything as they have yet to develop a basis upon which to make their own judgements. They obviously came to the idea that "...popery [is] worse [than Hinduism] in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus..." because you taught them that to be the truth when you know that is not the case.

With that brother, you must one day deal.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

My experience has indicated that the nominal do outnumber the faithful. However, it seems lately there is a resurgence in the number of the faithful and I'm wondering if has to do with changes implemented in their Catichecal training. There have been other changes of late as well. The most significant one you'll probably see is that there has been a review and retranslation of the liturgy which affects the mass and brevery etc... This will be implemented in 2011. There are many priest opposed because they are unfamiliar with the change, but many also like the changes. The RCC is becoming more conservative. This new translation is actually closer to the extrodinary rite which is the latin mass. So terms like v: "the lord be with you" R: "and also with you" will be closer to the Latin ie "Et cum spititu tuo" or and "with your spirit". Changes in the Eucharistic prayer are also made. The catholic church has changed in many ways since I was a kid. which may explain the ressurgence of the faithful.

EWTN might be having an impact as well.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, bowing before it doesn't mean worship to it and that's been proven here many times.

Genesis 19:1
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."



One of these things is not like the other.



If Jesus came before you, would you not fall on your face before him? Is Jesus present during your worship services and do you fall on your knees during worship? If not, then perhaps you should find a church where He is present.



Considering the source, I can see why they came to that conclusion. Anyone can teach the little "tabula rasas" anything as they have yet to develop a basis upon which to make their own judgements. They obviously came to the idea that "...popery [is] worse [than Hinduism] in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus..." because you taught them that to be the truth when you know that is not the case.

With that brother, you must one day deal.

Peace!

I understand from reading your past posts that you do not claim to be a Roman Catholic. Did I read or understand you correctly?

If you are not a Roman Catholic, are you considering becoming one? I ask this because it seems that you are defending the mass as the real presence of Christ in the wafer. Are you really defending that concept?

 

[BillySunday1935]

So also Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (petras) that followed them:
and that Rock (petra) was Christ.​

HankD​

Here's another place where scripture records Jesus changing Simon's name to "Rock".

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus . And when Jesus beheld him , he said , Thou art Simon [Rock/Stone] the son of Jona : thou shalt be called Cephas [Rock/Stone] , which is by interpretation , A stone.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If there are catholics that practice praying to the pope. regarding the saints as gods. Worshiping physical objects then they are not catholic but they are pagans in catholic clothing. I have not met any of these. And if there are catholics practicing voodoo with their catholicism. They are not catholic but they are pagan. These again are not catholic but pagan if such do these things and it goes against their very magisterium. So its like a baptist saying he's born again comming to the services but practicing Tarot, at home. This person is not a christian.

As far as crucifixes. They don't bother me. They represent specifically Christ attoning sacrifice which is good to remember when we are tempted by sin. I've heard the stupid debates of the puritans about the empty cross. Its stupid. A crucifix represents the attoning sacrifice. and empty cross represents christianity in general (and for some the risen lord). The dove represents the holy spirit. We have pictoral representations of biblical stories all over the place and thank God. They give witness to the Gospel message.

Crucifixes are an abomination and idolatry.

Secondly, every time a Roman Catholic worships the host they worship physical objects. Every time they bow down to an image of a pope, mary, or some supposed saint, they practice idolatry and worship of images.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, bowing before it doesn't mean worship to it and that's been proven here many times.

Genesis 19:1
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."



One of these things is not like the other.



If Jesus came before you, would you not fall on your face before him? Is Jesus present during your worship services and do you fall on your knees during worship? If not, then perhaps you should find a church where He is present.



Considering the source, I can see why they came to that conclusion. Anyone can teach the little "tabula rasas" anything as they have yet to develop a basis upon which to make their own judgements. They obviously came to the idea that "...popery [is] worse [than Hinduism] in that it profaned and blasphmed the name of Jesus..." because you taught them that to be the truth when you know that is not the case.

With that brother, you must one day deal.

Peace!

I could not have asked for a more glaring admission of idolatry. You readily admit to falling on your knees and worshipping the papal host. Those elements are physical objects, so you show yourself to be an idolator.

I am not your brother. I have an altar at which I worship that you know nothing of nor are a partaker of.

 

[BillySunday1935]

If you are not a Roman Catholic, are you considering becoming one? I ask this because it seems that you are defending the mass as the real presence of Christ in the wafer. Are you really defending that concept?

I am only stating my belief in what Jesus himself said as recorded in scripture, and that which the Church has taught and believed from its beginning. If I had to defend it, this is how I would begin...

The bread of life discourse begins in John 6:22, and the first point to address is the discussion of the heavenly bread. Jesus makes the point that as the Father sent manna from heaven for the physical nourishment of the Israelites, he has sent Jesus for the spiritual nourishment of the world. When Jesus announced this (6:41), the Jews murmured because he said that he had come down from heaven, not because he said that he was like bread. They understood his symbolic statement regarding the origin of the manna, and were scandalized by what it implied: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’" (6:42).

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesus’ initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am only stating my belief in what Jesus himself said as recorded in scripture, and that which the Church has taught and believed from its beginning. If I had to defend it, this is how I would begin...

The bread of life discourse begins in John 6:22, and the first point to address is the discussion of the heavenly bread. Jesus makes the point that as the Father sent manna from heaven for the physical nourishment of the Israelites, he has sent Jesus for the spiritual nourishment of the world. When Jesus announced this (6:41), the Jews murmured because he said that he had come down from heaven, not because he said that he was like bread. They understood his symbolic statement regarding the origin of the manna, and were scandalized by what it implied: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’" (6:42).

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesus’ initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

Peace!

Is this your home church to which you are a member? http://www.fbcdothan.org/index.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Crucifixes are an abomination and idolatry.

Secondly, every time a Roman Catholic worships the host they worship physical objects. Every time they bow down to an image of a pope, mary, or some supposed saint, they practice idolatry and worship of images.

Homosexuality is an abomination. Placing the statue of Jupiter or Zeus in the Holy of Holies is an abomination. Placing the statue of Caligula in the Holy of Holies is an abomination. I just don't see that the crucifix is on this level. Its a representation of Christ's attoning sacrifice. Do you use the same logic to make Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ an abomination, or the Jesus movie based on the gospel of John? How about picture bibles? Are they all abominations?

I've never seen my dad bow down to a statue of Mary or any other saint. He considerst them the inspiration to live a sanctified life. I've seen him genuflect though. But that is out of repect to what the Alter represents.

However, upon reflexion you make an interesting point about the Eucahrist and in a way you may be correct. Though is it the physical object or the divinity of christ they worship?

 

[BillySunday1935]

I could not have asked for a more glaring admission of idolatry. You readily admit to falling on your knees and worshipping the papal host.

Nowhere did I say that. Strawman alert!

Those elements are physical objects, so you show yourself to be an idolator.

But the Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. So my point is that, if you believe that Jesus is present in your worship services, why do you not fall down on your knees and worship Him? If you don't believe that He is present, then simply say so - I am not casting judgement either way.

I am not your brother.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ! You may not like it, but - well - there it is.

I have an altar at which I worship that you know nothing of nor are a partaker of.

Too much information...

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Homosexuality is an abomination. Placing the statue of Jupiter or Zeus in the Holy of Holies is an abomination. Placing the statue of Caligula in the Holy of Holies is an abomination. I just don't see that the crucifix is on this level. Its a representation of Christ's attoning sacrifice. Do you use the same logic to make Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ an abomination, or the Jesus movie based on the gospel of John? How about picture bibles? Are they all abominations?

I've never seen my dad bow down to a statue of Mary or any other saint. He considerst them the inspiration to live a sanctified life. I've seen him genuflect though. But that is out of repect to what the Alter represents.

However, upon reflexion you make an interesting point about the Eucahrist and in a way you may be correct. Though is it the physical object or the divinity of christ they worship?

Yes, in fact, I use the same logic with the Roman Catholic movie. Or any other drawing or image of Jesus or otherwise. I have seen the movie based on the Gospel of John and consider it idolatrous. Yes, pictures of Jesus in Bibles are idolatry and abomination. We are not to make images of God.

They are worshipping the object because they believe the lie that the elements have turned into the flesh and blood of Jesus. So they worship it, and call it the host. But whether in this, or in a bowing as many Roman Catholcis do before idols supposed to be mary, or some so-called saint, or a crucifix with the image of a dead man supposed to be Jesus, whether they kneel or bow or genuflect, they offer worship at the idol.

This is idolatry.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Yes, in fact, I use the same logic with the Roman Catholic movie. Or any other drawing or image of Jesus or otherwise. I have seen the movie based on the Gospel of John and consider it idolatrous. Yes, pictures of Jesus in Bibles are idolatry and abomination. We are not to make images of God.

Absolutely amazing!

They are worshipping the object because they believe the lie that the elements have turned into the flesh and blood of Jesus. So they worship it, and call it the host. But whether in this, or in a bowing as many Roman Catholcis do before idols supposed to be mary, or some so-called saint, or a crucifix with the image of a dead man supposed to be Jesus, whether they kneel or bow or genuflect, they offer worship at the idol.

This is idolatry.

No - that is YOUR definition of idolatry.

Peace!