• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RC claims to Idolatry in the Mass

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
Good question. And it brings to mind another. When the Apostles were walking about this earth, would it have been idolatry for them to hold in their memory what they remembered Christ looked like, even though that memory may have become faded over time and likely not an accurate representation? Do you think anyone ever asked them "what did he look like?" and they gave a description, to which the person formed a mental image of Jesus, to which they lashed out IDOLATER? No. I think the heart is the problem we must focus on.
What images do you suppose the Apostles focused upon?

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--We beheld his glory.

2Pet.1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--"eyewitnesses of his majesty"
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]You do not address the question. Would they have an image of him in their minds that faded with the years? Would they have spoken to others about what he looked like. It is not me that has a problem with any of this. I am mearly pointing out inconsistencies in your position that become obvious as to the extremist ways that you interprut the words of the first commandment about graven images.

By the way, it is your tradition of man Protestantism that provides your definition of the word pray in the more restrictive sense. Sorry but that is cold hard fact.
 

GraceSaves

New Member
DHK,

You so crazy. Are you saying that in Heaven, if I talk to you, I'm worshipping you? I doubt it. So natural-to-natural is fine. And supernatural-to-supernatural is fine. But natural-to-supernatural is automatically worship? YOU create the false dichotomy, because THAT is not in Scripture. If you claim we argue from Scriptural absense, you do the same. We did not redefine "prayer." You have redefined it.

But alas, your ears are plugged.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
If you believe the deity of Christ, that Christ is God, then yes. That is what those first few commandments are all about.
DHK
Would a person who watches a movie which portrays the events of the New Testament (ie: Jesus) also be guuilty of violating the commandment?

How about those little Chick tracts with the pictures of Jesus, the Holy Spirit (portrayed as a dove), and the Father (portrayed as a giant lightbulb)?

Is it a violation to print them? buy them??? distribute them??? read them???

It seems to me that most Babptists would have no problem with any of the above. Most Christians for that matter.
</font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I don't have a lot of use for Chick tracts.
There are many things in the Bible that are clear-cut. For example, to make a graven image and to bow down in front of it, and/or pray to it or in front of it, such as Catholics do in front of images of Christ (the crucifix), Mary, the stations of the cross, is clearly idolatry--a transgression of the Ten Commandments. From there where do we stop? There begins a slippery slope, at some point in time where one must draw a line, and say "enough!" Where that line is drawn is a matter of personal conviction based on the study of Scripture. Some draw it more conservatively than others; I am one of them. Romans 14 gives us some principles to go by.

Rom.14:5b "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
--Be absolutely persuaded that what you are doing is right.

Rom.14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
--You have a conscience. Does it condemn you in that which you are doing? Is it telling you in any way that what you are doing is wrong? Then don't do it. "Happy is he that condmeneth not himself."

"He that doubteth is damned." If there is any doubt at all in your mind if what you are doing is wrong, then don't. Be sure you are right.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Faith is confidence. In this context, it is the confidence or trust that what you are doing is completely right. Are you absolutely sure you are right about what you are doing?

The Scriptures are clear on some things, such as the idolatry that I described above. On the things that are not so clear, there is a matter of soul liberty among Baptists (and others).
DHK
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

You so crazy. Are you saying that in Heaven, if I talk to you, I'm worshipping you? I doubt it. So natural-to-natural is fine. And supernatural-to-supernatural is fine. But natural-to-supernatural is automatically worship? YOU create the false dichotomy, because THAT is not in Scripture. If you claim we argue from Scriptural absense, you do the same. We did not redefine "prayer." You have redefined it.

But alas, your ears are plugged.
Context is everything. You refuse to take words in their context. The context of the Ten Commandments is not a man talking to another man. It is man's relation to God in the first four commandments. That is the subject at hand. You introduce a red herring by changing the definition of prayer to man speaking to man. We are not talking of man speaking to man. We are talking about man speaking to God. If you want to consider me as God, and request me to respond to your posts, you will be worshipping me. Now, who is the one who is crazy?? Keep your definitions within the context of the subject at hand (i.e., man speaking to God--prayer). Either request me (man), or worship me (God). When you request God, it is worship. Context is everything. I hope you are "worshiping the true God.
DHK
 
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
They have already assessed my father-in-law and other members of their church, Holy Rosary, for what they are calling church repairs for small parishes and for clergy who have no retirement. His assessment was just shy of $3,000. My in-laws believe that much of these funds will go to defray the church's present litigation in the courts. Personally, I do not have any opinion in this levy matter. ]
Assessed? Levy?

I would say that there is either a gross misunderstanding or a gross misreprentation on some person's part in this matter.

The Church does not "assess" or "levy".

No doubt, as members of a particular Parish Church, your father in-law was asked to contribute volutarily for a particular purpose (ie. repairs and retirement needs of elderly priests).

Most likely, it was explained what amount of money needed to be raised for these purposes and someone, perhaps the finance committee or the Pastor, did a simple arithmatic calculation as to how much would be needed from each family in the parish to meet the goal.

But all contribute voluntarily. Some more than others, some less than others, based on their personal convictions.

Is it much different in your church?

What your in-laws believe may or may not be correct, and it would be within their rights to weigh such beliefs in the decision as to whether or not they wish to volutarily contribute and to what degree they would volntrily contribute.
 
Originally posted by DHK:

There are many things in the Bible that are clear-cut. For example, to make a graven image and to bow down in front of it, and/or pray to it or in front of it, such as Catholics do in front of images of Christ (the crucifix), Mary, the stations of the cross, is clearly idolatry--a transgression of the Ten Commandments.
Now I'm confused.

Isn't the commandment not to make graven images?

You seem to be equivocating by now adding bowing to them.

Can we have statues (graven images) as long as we don't bow to them?

Can we bow to statues as long as someone else made them?
From there where do we stop? There begins a slippery slope, at some point in time where one must draw a line, and say "enough!" Where that line is drawn is a matter of personal conviction based on the study of Scripture. Some draw it more conservatively than others; I am one of them. Romans 14 gives us some principles to go by.
Well then why do you not allow Catholics to do the same? Because you are convinced that you are right?

I know that you hate it when I say this, but that is merely your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Rom.14:5b "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
--Be absolutely persuaded that what you are doing is right.
I am.

--You have a conscience. Does it condemn you in that which you are doing? Is it telling you in any way that what you are doing is wrong? Then don't do it. "Happy is he that condmeneth not himself."
Quite the contrary. I am absoutely convinced that my behavior in this regard is both right and pleasing to God.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Faith is confidence. In this context, it is the confidence or trust that what you are doing is completely right. Are you absolutely sure you are right about what you are doing?
Since I am secure in my confidence of right doing, as you say, there is no sin. Thank you for that concesion.

The Scriptures are clear on some things, such as the idolatry that I described above. On the things that are not so clear, there is a matter of soul liberty among Baptists (and others).
Since the Church is able to make a reasonable arguement contrary to your position on this matter, it would appear to be not as clear as you claim.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by trying2understand:
Originally posted by DHK:

There are many things in the Bible that are clear-cut. For example, to make a graven image and to bow down in front of it, and/or pray to it or in front of it, such as Catholics do in front of images of Christ (the crucifix), Mary, the stations of the cross, is clearly idolatry--a transgression of the Ten Commandments.
Now I'm confused.
Isn't the commandment not to make graven images?
eX.20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Yes, the command is not to make any graven image, or any likeness thereof.

You seem to be equivocating by now adding bowing to them.
eX.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You just need to read further. It is not my addition; it is God's. "Thou shalt not bow down to them." It's been there all along, for the past 3,000 years, and you're just noticing it now?

Can we have statues (graven images) as long as we don't bow to them?
As I said before--context is everything. You can have all the statues you want--statue of liberty, liberty bell, etc. These are not religious icons, relics, or statues. Money in itself can become an idol that is worshipped by some. What is your attitude? You kneel before it. You pray before it. You, thus worship it and transgress the Ten Commandments. You commit idolatry. Admiring the statue of liberty is entirely different.

Can we bow to statues as long as someone else made them?
It doesn't make a difference who makes them.

Jeremiah 10:
2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.
8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.
10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

Your statues are powerless and fruitless--meaningless idols.
DHK
 
DHK, what happened to "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"?

Doesn't apply if it is not in agreement with your faith?

Why do you deny me my soul liberty?

BTW, how can you call my behavior sin if you do not know my heart (faith)?

And isn't there something in Scripture about judging others?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, what happened to "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"?

Doesn't apply if it is not in agreement with your faith?
Read the rest of the Ten Commandments.
Whatsoever is not of faith does not apply when applied to:
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

It also does not apply to the first few commmands:
Thou shalt not make any graven image.
Thou shalt not bow down to them.

The Bible is very clear on these commands.

Why do you insist on obeying some of them, and not all of them? Are you not being a hypocrite?
DHK
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”


The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible - then you must consider that they are practicing idolatry.

I am inclined to believe them regarding the view that a non-RC "must" have view of their practice.

Some have concluded that these kinds of pagan practices make Cahtolics "non-Christian" - I do not agree with that.

However it does raise some questions:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.

Ideas? Thoughts?

In Christ,

Bob
 

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?
Why should I even answer that? You have stated, what, 30 times or more that there is no other way to take it. If I said "yes," you would just go, "Ah ha, see, I told you!" And if I said "no," you would tell me how I'm wrong.

When one has already made up their mind, why discuss? Heck, I've already stated my opposition to the statement pretty elaborately, but you rejected it.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.
I'm guessing you know! Congrats!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”
The point is clear and obvious and the RC efforts not withstanding - it is impossible for the objective reader to miss.

While WE ALL agree that the Faith Explained is not arguing AGAINST the Catholic view of the bread as being God. What the FE IS saying is that in worshipping it AS God - the implication is that IF that is not really the case - then this is a pure form of idolatry.

In fact they are correct on that point. It is a MORE pure form than is practiced by Pagans for they claim that the statues only REPRESENT the being they are praying to - they do not argue that the statue IS the god they pray to.

And that statement by the FE showing the consequence of being wrong in regard to the real state of the bread - reveals clarity of thought on the part of the Catholic leadership that is striking even to non-Catholics as we consider what really IS the implication of the Catholic error regarding the communion.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Bringing this back in connection with the new "Judge NOT" thread.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”


The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible - then you must consider that they are practicing idolatry.

I am inclined to believe them regarding the view that a non-RC "must" have view of their practice.

Some have concluded that these kinds of pagan practices make Cahtolics "non-Christian" - I do not agree with that.

However it does raise some questions:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.
The "JUDGE NOT" Thread asks if we are allowed to determine salvation status based on doctrines that may or may not be in error -- this is asking the same question here.

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Here is a good example of an RC authority pointing out that the Eucharist worship is PURE idolatry IF the RC theology is in error - but even then ... who will accept the clear light shining on that subject?

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Though we can not agree with their non-Biblical views of the Eucharist - we CAN appreciate the honesty and frankness of the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" in admitting that if that is in error - then they are truly practicing a pure form of idolatry.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Just curious. Are there any other Christian groups that claim that they are committing idolatry in their worship service if some relic/icon/earthly-object is not in fact transformed into God Himself?

IN Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”


The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible - then you must consider that they are practicing idolatry.

I am inclined to believe them regarding the view that a non-RC "must" have view of their practice.
Some have concluded that these kinds of pagan practices make Cahtolics "non-Christian" - I do not agree with that.

However it does raise some questions:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.

Do our RCC brethern have compelling - objective "detailed" Ideas that will tolerate the full light of open debate or do they simply stonewall on the "hard questions" ? Thoughts?

In Christ,

Bob
 
Top