what does that mean?
ECT Why shouldn't I convert from Evangelical Protestant to Catholic?
- Thread starter RichRock
- Start date
what does that mean?
Cruciform
New member
Read the statement you quoted again. Catholics invoke the intercession of the saint whose body is being venerated (honored). We do not speak to the body itself. So, no, Catholics decidedly do not "pray to dead bodies." Please get your facts straight.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
opcorn:
Cruciform
New member
First you'll need to accurately and clearly represent the Catholic Church and her teachings, instead of promoting the sort of distortions and misrepresentations that you have thus far attempted to pass off as "knowledge" on this forum.
Also, given that you are not yourself a Christian---having rejected what is perhaps the central doctrine of the faith (the Trinity)---you have much bigger problems than even your fundamental ignorance of Christ's one historic Church.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
- Your statement is only meaningful if sola scriptura is in fact true
- Sola scriptura is itself unbiblical, and so directly refutes itself
- Sola scriptura is therefore necessarily false
- Thus, any argument you offer (such as the one above) which is based upon sola scriptura is equally false
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
:darwinsm:... Thanks, I really needed that.
What is it with your strange and perverse way of using the name 'god's truth' as a forum name when you aren't even Christian?
Last edited:
God's Truth
New member
It is about having the Holy Spirit inside you.
God's Truth
New member
Leviticus 26:1 "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 20: 4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
No longer bow down to the work of your hands (see Micah 5:13)
Hosea 14:8. Isaiah 44:9. God’s word warns us no idols.
1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourself from idols.
The Israelites burned incense to the bronze snake/the Catholic priest burns incense to the crucifix, and any relics or images of saints. If the bronze snake that Moses had made was broke into pieces because the Israelites had been burning incense to it (see 2 Kings 18:1-4), then why is it okay for the Catholic priests to bow to and incense the crucifix?
God's Truth
New member
Cruciform
New member
You're confusing your opinions (interpretations) about the supposed meaning of the Bible with "God's truth."
God's Truth
New member
Where have I done what you accuse me of doing?
All I have done is tell others to obey God.
The Bible is clear on what is said.
Cruciform
New member
Everywhere that you have misinterpreted and/or misapplied the Scriptures.
Not in cases where you have misinterpreted and/or misapplied the Bible, it seems. :nono:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
God's Truth
New member
You prove that you cannot prove your false accusations.
Today's subject was about relics, an interesting few pages of debate backwards and forwards. Here's a short article I found showing a the position from the Catholic view, and why protestants do not like relics:
RELICS
Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.
Protestants do not like relics. Most of all, they oppose the idea that grace is conferred through them. When they hear that Catholics seek miracles through relics, they say Catholics claim relics are magical. But something that is magical is the cause of miracles, while relics have no such power. Relics are sometimes the instrument that God uses to cure others, the occasions of God's miracles, but there is nothing miraculous in the relic itself. The Catholic Church acknowledges this.
And relics have been the occasions of God's miracles. Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21).
The cloak of Christ was the occasion of a miracle (Matt. 9:20-22), as was Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15-16) and Paul's handkerchief (Acts 19:11-12).
Protestants argue that many different places often claim the relics of the same saint. Therefore, most relics must be frauds. Of course, through the ages, relics were broken, divided, and sent to many places, so it is not unusual to have the bones of the same saint found in many different locations. Protestants like to repeat the old joke that if the pieces of the True Cross were gathered together, you would have enough wood to build a warship. Thus, they say, most relics are fake. But in the nineteenth century, a Frenchman named Rohault de Fleury, calculated that if all the relics of the true cross that were known to exist (including those that there was record of but had been lost) were put together, it would not even make half a cross.
Are most relics fake? Some are, but with most relics, there is good reason to believe that they are authentic, because the relics were always in the possession of a church or church member, and passed down faithfully. Some relics are almost assuredly authentic. Some are probably authentic. Some are doubtful. And some are fake. Does this matter? Relics work to inspire faith and aid in the devotion given to saints. To some it is a matter of curiosity. If the believer thinks the relic is authentic, but it is not, no harm is done. What he does not know will not bother him.
And then there is the Biblical example of the veneration of relics–that of Christ Himself. Joseph of Arimathea removed the body of Christ from the cross after valiantly asking Pilate for the body (Mark 15:43; John 19:38), and he buried him in his own, newly made tomb (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus brought one hundred pounds of spices to use on the body (John 19:39). Afterwards, the women went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and anoint the body of Christ further (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1). Thus, the body of Christ–the ultimate of all relics–was venerated by His disciples.
Martyrdom of Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp 17,18 [A.D. 157]) "Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom."
Basil (Epistle 197 [A.D. 375]) "These relics do you receive with a joy equivalent to the distress with which their custodians have parted with them . . . These bones He will crown, together with that soul, in the righteous day of His requital".
Ambrose (Epistle 22, 2-17 [A.D. 380]) "On the following day we translated the relics to the basilica called Ambrosian. During the translation a blind man was healed . . . He declares that when he touched the hem of the robe of the martyrs, wherewith the sacred relics were covered, his sight was restored.
Jerome (Epistle 109:1 [A.D. 404]) "Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are . . . I ask Vigilantius, Are the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean? . . . And do we, every time that we enter the basilicas of apostles and prophets and martyrs, pay homage to the shrines of idols?"
Augustine (City of God, 22:8 [A.D. 413]) "Lucillus bishop of Sinita, in the neighborhood of the colonial town of Hippo, was carrying in procession some relics of [Stephen], which had been deposited in the castle of Sinita . . . Eucharius, a Spanish priest, residing at Calama, was for a long time a sufferer from stone. By the relics of the same martyr, which the bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterwards the same priest, sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already they were binding his hands. By the succor of the same martyr he was raised to life, the priest's cloak having been brought from the oratory and laid upon the corpse."
Theodoret of Cyrus (The Cure of Pagan Maladies, 8:54 [A.D. 449]) "Though the body has been divided, its grace has continued undivided. And that little particle and smallest relic has the same power as the absolutely and utterly undivided martyr."
Source: http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/catholictracts/tract83.html
As a protestant I find (as I expect is normal) some aspects of the Catholic Church difficult and uncomfortable, in part because it is fairly new to me, in part because I stlll have preconceived strictly protestant ideas. What I must remember is that if I am to believe the Catholic Church is Christ's true historic Church, then that means I have to accept somethings I am not fully comfortable with. Today I eventually learnt that discomfort is no basis for rejection of whether something is true or not.
RELICS
Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.
Protestants do not like relics. Most of all, they oppose the idea that grace is conferred through them. When they hear that Catholics seek miracles through relics, they say Catholics claim relics are magical. But something that is magical is the cause of miracles, while relics have no such power. Relics are sometimes the instrument that God uses to cure others, the occasions of God's miracles, but there is nothing miraculous in the relic itself. The Catholic Church acknowledges this.
And relics have been the occasions of God's miracles. Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21).
The cloak of Christ was the occasion of a miracle (Matt. 9:20-22), as was Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15-16) and Paul's handkerchief (Acts 19:11-12).
Protestants argue that many different places often claim the relics of the same saint. Therefore, most relics must be frauds. Of course, through the ages, relics were broken, divided, and sent to many places, so it is not unusual to have the bones of the same saint found in many different locations. Protestants like to repeat the old joke that if the pieces of the True Cross were gathered together, you would have enough wood to build a warship. Thus, they say, most relics are fake. But in the nineteenth century, a Frenchman named Rohault de Fleury, calculated that if all the relics of the true cross that were known to exist (including those that there was record of but had been lost) were put together, it would not even make half a cross.
Are most relics fake? Some are, but with most relics, there is good reason to believe that they are authentic, because the relics were always in the possession of a church or church member, and passed down faithfully. Some relics are almost assuredly authentic. Some are probably authentic. Some are doubtful. And some are fake. Does this matter? Relics work to inspire faith and aid in the devotion given to saints. To some it is a matter of curiosity. If the believer thinks the relic is authentic, but it is not, no harm is done. What he does not know will not bother him.
And then there is the Biblical example of the veneration of relics–that of Christ Himself. Joseph of Arimathea removed the body of Christ from the cross after valiantly asking Pilate for the body (Mark 15:43; John 19:38), and he buried him in his own, newly made tomb (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus brought one hundred pounds of spices to use on the body (John 19:39). Afterwards, the women went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and anoint the body of Christ further (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1). Thus, the body of Christ–the ultimate of all relics–was venerated by His disciples.
Martyrdom of Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp 17,18 [A.D. 157]) "Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom."
Basil (Epistle 197 [A.D. 375]) "These relics do you receive with a joy equivalent to the distress with which their custodians have parted with them . . . These bones He will crown, together with that soul, in the righteous day of His requital".
Ambrose (Epistle 22, 2-17 [A.D. 380]) "On the following day we translated the relics to the basilica called Ambrosian. During the translation a blind man was healed . . . He declares that when he touched the hem of the robe of the martyrs, wherewith the sacred relics were covered, his sight was restored.
Jerome (Epistle 109:1 [A.D. 404]) "Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are . . . I ask Vigilantius, Are the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean? . . . And do we, every time that we enter the basilicas of apostles and prophets and martyrs, pay homage to the shrines of idols?"
Augustine (City of God, 22:8 [A.D. 413]) "Lucillus bishop of Sinita, in the neighborhood of the colonial town of Hippo, was carrying in procession some relics of [Stephen], which had been deposited in the castle of Sinita . . . Eucharius, a Spanish priest, residing at Calama, was for a long time a sufferer from stone. By the relics of the same martyr, which the bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterwards the same priest, sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already they were binding his hands. By the succor of the same martyr he was raised to life, the priest's cloak having been brought from the oratory and laid upon the corpse."
Theodoret of Cyrus (The Cure of Pagan Maladies, 8:54 [A.D. 449]) "Though the body has been divided, its grace has continued undivided. And that little particle and smallest relic has the same power as the absolutely and utterly undivided martyr."
Source: http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/catholictracts/tract83.html
As a protestant I find (as I expect is normal) some aspects of the Catholic Church difficult and uncomfortable, in part because it is fairly new to me, in part because I stlll have preconceived strictly protestant ideas. What I must remember is that if I am to believe the Catholic Church is Christ's true historic Church, then that means I have to accept somethings I am not fully comfortable with. Today I eventually learnt that discomfort is no basis for rejection of whether something is true or not.
Cruciform
New member
Sadly, you yourself prove them every time you misinterpret/misapply the Scriptures.
The following comment is from an article written here regarding relics: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/relics/ This article itself, if you read it is excellent and informative, but the comments back and forth between Catholic and Protestant are brilliantly insightful. The following is the last comment from below the article in the link above...
Peter Leithart recently wrote an article titled “Idolatry and the Reformation.” In it he claims that idolatry was at least one of the problems the early Protestants attempted to address, and that they sought to address it through high sacramentalism, among other ways. The allegedly idolatrous practices to which Leithart refers (e.g. veneration of relics, icons, saints) are not, from a Catholic point of view, idolatrous, for reasons explained in comment #18 above. So this disagreement shows that we need to step back and not just compare respective definitions of idolatry, but compare the basis and authority of these respective definitions, and make sure that our criticisms of the other’s practices do not beg the question [in the presuppose-the-truth-of-our-own-position sense].
But it is also worth considering whether the very sacramentalism to which Leithart appeals is what lies behind and under the Catholic practices Leithart considers idolatrous. From my own perspective, in light of Matt’s article above, it seems to me that the veneration of saints, relics, and icons, is all based on the understanding that what participates in Christ points to Christ by that very participation.
We honor the saints not because of who they are in themselves but because of who they are in Christ, because of Christ’s living and working in them, as they journeyed to Christ, and are now with Christ in glory. And the same sort of reasoning applies to relics and icons —they have a non-competing relation with that from which they come, and to which they point. Honoring the icon of a saint does not detract from the honor due to the saint, but precisely the opposite —is a way of honoring that saint, and, still more, is a way of honoring Christ Himself who saved and sanctified that saint, and who is honored as the source and agent underlying the goodness exemplified by the heroic life of that saint. The painted image of a saint is an icon of the saint, and by the work of grace and the Holy Spirit within the saint, the saint is an icon of Christ.
So likewise, in the very same sacramental perspective, we approach the sacraments not as objects that distract from Christ, or compete with Christ, but as coming from Christ, as being given to us by Christ, as being the instruments by which Christ comes to us and unites us to Himself and deepens our union with Himself. For this reason, again from my perspective, it would be ad hoc to embrace and applaud that sacramentalism in baptism and the Supper, while condemning it as idolatrous as it is applied to the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, to their physical members, and to physical images of their sacred bodies, bodies made sacred by the same Holy Spirit who makes holy the water of baptism, and comes down upon the bread and wine at the consecration. What is needed, then, in my opinion, in order to make progress in resolving this longstanding disagreement, is not only a discussion of the basis for our different definitions of idolatry, but also a principled distinction (not merely an arbitrary stipulated distinction) between what makes sacramentalism good in baptism and the Supper, and bad in the communion of the saints, and the veneration of relics and images.
Peter Leithart recently wrote an article titled “Idolatry and the Reformation.” In it he claims that idolatry was at least one of the problems the early Protestants attempted to address, and that they sought to address it through high sacramentalism, among other ways. The allegedly idolatrous practices to which Leithart refers (e.g. veneration of relics, icons, saints) are not, from a Catholic point of view, idolatrous, for reasons explained in comment #18 above. So this disagreement shows that we need to step back and not just compare respective definitions of idolatry, but compare the basis and authority of these respective definitions, and make sure that our criticisms of the other’s practices do not beg the question [in the presuppose-the-truth-of-our-own-position sense].
But it is also worth considering whether the very sacramentalism to which Leithart appeals is what lies behind and under the Catholic practices Leithart considers idolatrous. From my own perspective, in light of Matt’s article above, it seems to me that the veneration of saints, relics, and icons, is all based on the understanding that what participates in Christ points to Christ by that very participation.
We honor the saints not because of who they are in themselves but because of who they are in Christ, because of Christ’s living and working in them, as they journeyed to Christ, and are now with Christ in glory. And the same sort of reasoning applies to relics and icons —they have a non-competing relation with that from which they come, and to which they point. Honoring the icon of a saint does not detract from the honor due to the saint, but precisely the opposite —is a way of honoring that saint, and, still more, is a way of honoring Christ Himself who saved and sanctified that saint, and who is honored as the source and agent underlying the goodness exemplified by the heroic life of that saint. The painted image of a saint is an icon of the saint, and by the work of grace and the Holy Spirit within the saint, the saint is an icon of Christ.
So likewise, in the very same sacramental perspective, we approach the sacraments not as objects that distract from Christ, or compete with Christ, but as coming from Christ, as being given to us by Christ, as being the instruments by which Christ comes to us and unites us to Himself and deepens our union with Himself. For this reason, again from my perspective, it would be ad hoc to embrace and applaud that sacramentalism in baptism and the Supper, while condemning it as idolatrous as it is applied to the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, to their physical members, and to physical images of their sacred bodies, bodies made sacred by the same Holy Spirit who makes holy the water of baptism, and comes down upon the bread and wine at the consecration. What is needed, then, in my opinion, in order to make progress in resolving this longstanding disagreement, is not only a discussion of the basis for our different definitions of idolatry, but also a principled distinction (not merely an arbitrary stipulated distinction) between what makes sacramentalism good in baptism and the Supper, and bad in the communion of the saints, and the veneration of relics and images.
hear, hear