I read your response after I came back from work and Gosh, you were the most hilarious thing that has happened to me today
. I am grateful to you for providing that much need humour. You firstly ascribed that I took all night to reply your post. Very funny
, don't flatter yourself unduly. For those of us that go to work early in the morning, we do have time to check our mails and probably visit our favourite sites before jetting out to work. Your reply took me less than 15 minutes to address and I blame my self for taking that long. Your not worth that long in my life! Honestly that part cracked me up! Your good! A future whoopi Goldberg in the making
Secondly, after reading your reply, I actually for once decided to see who was behind the mask posting such odious and pungent statements on this forum, and it struck me that I have been the one that has been wrong all the while. The screen name Pilgrim, actually settles it all. You’re a journey man or let’s say woman or whatever you represent and your still on your quest to find out what your heart really desires. I finally found out that the reason you jump from religion to religion to defend various faiths is because your not stable. It is the hallmark of a pilgrim on his pilgrimage to search. Maybe your on the look out for the holygrail and right now your bustop is to become a anti catholic. Am sure by the time you have spent your whole life journeying through various faiths, I expect you to return back to where you originally came from.
So am no longer going to disturb myself trading barbs with someone that could do a full 360 tomorrow and tell me the gains of being an apostle of the confusion faith. I’ll rather feel safer in the hands of long term practicing protestants, that are interested in constructive debates where we can learn from each other and probably move closer to God. Debates are not meant to provoke or stir up violence or anger just because you are so dogmatic in your beliefs. The title of the supposedly “well thought of thread of yours”, is enough for well renowed intellectuals to deviate for a moment and engage in rough talk and forget to put things in the right perspective. A reasonable debate is not about losing an argument or winning it. It’s meant for a reflective soul searching later on to balance both sides.
All along, you have accused me of not providing substantial answers as it regards your questions as it relates to Mariolatory beliefs and bowing to statutes, hence your submission that we are idolators and your constant reference to the word of faith from the bible.
1. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. You are assuming that the Bible is the sole rule and guide of faith, and that God has revealed nothing outside the Bible that is necessary for our salvation. This is wrong. How do you know what books belong in the Bible? How do you know what is divinely inspired, using the Bible alone? You don't, because the Bible does not include an inspired table of contents. Yet you would agree that knowing what books are inspired can only come from God, and knowing what books are inspired is necessary for our salvation. But since the Bible does not say what books belong in the Bible, this forces you to look outside the Bible to learn how the canon of Scripture was selected. This determination was made by the Catholic Church at her various councils in 382, 393 and 397 A.D. You can read your Bible from cover to cover and not find a single passage that asserts" that the Bible is the only authority for the Christian. Yet, this is Pilgrim’s premise throughout this thread. This is the real issue, Pilgrim. If you cannot demonstrate that the Bible is the only source of God’s word, then none of your conclusions about Catholic teaching are trustworthy, since the conclusions are based on a false premise.
This is a truth that you Protestants simply cannot refute. Therefore, start becoming familiar with history, and abandon your private judgment, non-biblical "Bible-only" fallacy and listen to the Catholic Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). This dialogue is over until you can effectively address this issue - but you can't unless you become Catholic. That, of course, will require you to empty yourself and seek the truth.
Which brings us to an important point? There is a central authority in Catholicism, and that is the Catholic Church (from which Pilgrim rarely quotes but relies on pictures or hearsay statements). Pilgrim has no such authority in her world other than her own private interpretation of Scripture. You will pretend that Scripture is perspicuous and self-attesting, yet there are about 30,000 different “Bible" churches that all teach different doctrines regarding the Christian faith, most of which have cropped up in the last 50 years. I could find a dozen anti-Catholics who all hold different opinions about justification, baptism and a host of other issues to demonstrate how arbitrary and erroneous and extremely unstable Protestantism is. This is the main reason why thousands of Protestant pastors have come home to the Catholic Church in recent years.
For example, I could find one Protestant catholic basher who would disagree with Pilgrims understanding of baptism. Pilgrim would accuse the Protestant apologist of not having a “biblical" view. The Protestant catholic basher would accuse Pilgrim of the same. Even though baptism is one of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, these two Christians would be in disagreement. Unfortunately for them, there is no method in Protestantism of resolving their disagreement. Yet they both claim that the Bible is their only authority. But if the Bible can’t resolve their disagreement, then how can it be their only authority? Help us with this, Pilgrim.
The bible that you are eloquently quoting was actually put together by the Catholic Church early fathers, so if you call it "bull", then what ever your quoting is also bull . Was it you or your pastor that gathered all the relevant and inspirational parts of the bible that your quoting wth so much discipline as you stated earlier? Did Jesus write the bible and hand it over to you personally? Did your protestant mentors like Calvin and Luther Martin chose the required WORD OF FAITH scriptures that your quoting today? All the chosen books, verses and chapters in the bible where carefully selected by the catholic church and i assume this is your own defination of "bull"
If you want to wow me, go and search for the other books written by other prophets and apostles and tell us Catholics what we are missing. Bottom line, your catholic more than you imagine because it’s the basic tenets of the catholic church that was chosen to be in the bible. You might argue all day long that it’s not my bible and I use the King James version all you like. Once again bottom line, the edited remaining parts were still chosen for you to reflect on. So the argument would have been more subtle, if you were in another religion and we were comparing notes. Too bad. I understand your pains for the Catholic church overshadowing your thinking. You can’t help it. Better still, write your own version devoid of Catholic input that is devoid of "bull" but again, since it's the same thing, i wonder who the real "bull" in human form is?
2. You talked about Catholics taking Mary as an Intercessor or mediator and challenged me to address the matter.
As i have already stated, Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But that does not preclude Jesus from applying His role as mediator anyway He sees fit. In fact, right before Paul says that "Jesus is the one mediator" (1 Tim 2:5), Paul appeals for mediation from others besides Christ, by urging that "supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Tim 2:1). How can Paul appeal to mediation from others if Jesus is our only mediator? Because, as St. Paul answers, "this is good, and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4). Therefore, although Jesus is our one mediator, He has charged us to be intercessors, or subordinate mediators with Him. We are able to do this by virtue of our baptism into the lord.
This is why Paul can say "I complete in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church (Col 1:24). Was anything lacking in Christ's sufferings? Of course not. Paul is teaching us that God invites us to participate in the work of Jesus Christ, whether it be through intercession, suffering, works of charity and so forth. God is not threatened by the great glory and responsibility He gives His children. Indeed, the God that is worshiped in the Catholic Church is a loving Father who is intimately involved with His children and who invites their participation, just as earthly fathers do for their children.
Also Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of God" when she says: "How can the mother of my Lord come to me?" (Lk 1:43). Is Pilgrim criticizing the words that Elizabeth chose when she greeted Mary? This is troubling indeed, since both Elizabeth's declaration and Luke's recording of same were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Also, where, pilgrim does the Catholic Church teach that "no one can enter the blessed kingdom without passing through her [Mary]?" You site no document but base your criticisms on pure hatred of the catholic faith.
Also when anti-Catholics make such sweeping statements about the teachings of the Church, we must take them to task. Tell us, Pilgrim, where the Catholic Church teaches that "Jesus, as judge, is too harsh, but that Mary will not refuse anyone"? Can you refer me to a specific papal or conciliar teaching? A paragraph in the catechism perhaps? Or any book at all with a Catholic papal statement? The Catholic Church teaches no such thing. But Pilgrim has demonstrated that she really doesn't know, or perhaps doesn't even care, what the Church really teaches. She is a girl on a mission, and that is to denigrate the Church that Jesus Christ has built upon the rock of Peter (Mt 16:18-19), the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Just because the Father gave "all power" to Jesus, this does not mean that Jesus cannot share it with others. The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus does share it with others. He confers upon His apostles the authority to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23); He gives Peter the keys of authority over the Church and the power to bind and loose (Mt 16:18-19); He also gives the other apostles the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 18:18); He gives the priests of the Church the authority to anoint the sick and forgive their sins (Jm 5:14-15); He gives baptized Christians the authority to suffer redemptively (Col 1:24); He gives the apostles the power to confect the Eucharist (Mt 26:26-28); He gives Christians the power to intercede for others (all kinds of examples in the writings of Paul, James and John). Again, Pilgrim, if God is not threatened by the power He gives His children, you shouldn't be either.
Catholics world wide, accept that Mary is not our Saviour. Jesus Christ is our Saviour. I don't know how long Pilgrim "Bible Christian" sect has been around, but the Catholic Church, for 2,000 years, has been worshiping Jesus Christ as its only Lord and Saviour. The only "error" that this critique has demonstrated is the error of Miss. Pilgrim’s ( i assume your not yet married) approach to Sacred Scripture. If the Catholic Church actually taught what Pilgrim believes she teaches (that we worship Mary), then such teaching would be blasphemous indeed. But as we have seen, the only thing that is blasphemous in this dialogue is Pilgrim’s unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation that we worship Mary as God. This is the product of Pilgrim’s fallacious hermeneutic, faulty biblical exegesis and unfamiliarity with the early Church fathers, not to mention his evident prejudice against the Catholic Church. When people try to interpret the Scriptures outside of the living Tradition of the Church who gave us them, they end up "twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Pet 3:16).
The issue of Mary being a mediator is really quite a simple issue with which there should be no disagreement. Jesus is indeed our “one mediator." But when we ask others to pray for us, are we not asking them to “mediate" on our behalf? When someone prays to God for us, is Pilgrim suggesting that they are not a mediator? If not, what are they? Right before Paul calls Jesus the “one mediator," he appeals to all of us to offer “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings" to God (1 Tim. 2:5). In other words, he asks for mediation from others besides Jesus, all the while acknowledging that Jesus is the one mediator.
Is Paul’s teaching inconsistent? Of course not. Paul is teaching us that, although Jesus is our one mediator, we can join our prayers and sacrifices with His. Jesus shares His mediation with us. This is why Paul says we can “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His body" (Col. 1:24). Unlike what Pilgrim is suggesting, nothing in Scripture precludes us from sharing in Jesus’ role as the one mediator before the Father. To the contrary, Scripture repeatedly tells us to offer our prayers for the benefit of others. By virtue of the Holy Spirit, we share in the divine sonship of Jesus Christ and, with Christ, are able to cry out “Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:6; 3:26-27).
Pilgrim narrow exegesis actually gives Christ less glory than the Catholic view. As Catholics, we know that even though Jesus is our one mediator and does not need any help from us, He shares His mediation with us, just as He shares with us His holiness and glory. This is what a loving Father does for His children. This concept of God sharing His gifts with His children is an overriding theme of the Catholic faith.
Mary is a channel of grace but not the source of grace. Jesus Christ is the only source of grace. Mary is a channel, or an instrument of God’s grace, in a most profound way.
If Pilgrim is living a life of Christian virtue, I hope that she too thinks of himself as a channel of grace. God works in and through us by the power of His Spirit. Thus, we are all “channels" of that grace, bearing witness to Christ and bringing people to the truth. This is why Paul calls us “God’s co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9). As channels of grace, work together with God in building up His kingdom.
Same thing with calling Mary “advocate" and “mediator or intercessor in some quarters." Mary is a “co-worker" of God in her role as advocate and intercessor because she prays for us and our well-being, as do the rest of the saints. She does this in a subordinate way to Jesus’ advocacy and mediation. The Scriptures are full of examples of saintly mediation. Since Mary had a unique role in God’s plan of salvation by bringing the Word of God into the world, she can also be called the “ladder of paradise," and the “gate of heaven." She is not the source of paradise or heaven; she is the means by which God made heaven accessible to us through Christ our Lord. It is very common for saints, particularly those in the Middle Ages, to use such loving and flowery language to describe the Blessed Mother.
Here is the point: The Catholic Church never, ever elevates Mary to the level of deity, and Pilgrim knows this. There is an infinite distance between the power of Jesus and the power of Mary. Jesus is the Creator, and Mary is the creature. Without Jesus’ power, Mary would have no power. But Protestants want to treat Mary as nothing more than a disposable vessel. How sad.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize the incredible gifts that God has given to Mary and the rest of us. We participate in the work of Christ in furthering His kingdom, and Mary, as the mother of God’s Son, does this more intimately than any other creature. I guess when Mary prophesied “all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48), she didn’t have Pilgrim in mind because you’re a unique being belonging to another generation I presume.
Perhaps Pilgrim can find just one quote from any of the fathers of the early centuries of the Catholic Church attempting to downgrade Mary the way Pilgrim wants to do. She knows none exist, otherwise she would be presenting them to us. In fact, Martin Luther, the man who ignited the Reformation, had a deep and loving devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her role as mediator. Luther would be disgusted with Pilgrim attempts to denigrate Mary as a mere Jewish lady who gave birth to Jesus
Pilgrim, can we be mediators “in a limited sense" if Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator? As I have demonstrated in my earlier rebuttal, Scripture teaches we can be subordinate mediators or intercessors in Christ because this is what God invites us to be. Paul says our mediation is “good and acceptable" to God (1 Tim 2:3) We, along with Mary, are only mediators because of the one mediatorial role of Jesus Christ.
Thus, our mediation is “limited" to the mediation of Christ. We cannot act as mediators independently of Christ, nor will God grant our petitions if they are inconsistent with the will of Christ. As I stated before, theology is about making the proper distinctions. Pilgrim is bent on elevating Mary’s mediatorial role to equal or even above Jesus, but she knows quite well that the Church teaches no such thing. Let’s try to be honest in this argument.
2. Issues relating to Idolatory and bowing to statutes
According to anti catholics, the Roman Catholic Doctrine states that, the statue of Mary is supposed to bow down to by all catholics and you use pictures to illustrate your belief. What you are referring to here - even if it was accurately presented - would not be a "doctrine" (which means a belief which is taught) but rather a "devotion" (which means a pious custom or exercise).
For example, believing that *God created everything in the universe* - and therefore even the food that we eat and the air we breathe has God as its source (since He is our Creator) - this would be considered a "doctrine," or a belief, of the faith.
However, when I offer a prayer of thanksgiving to God prior to every meal in gratitude for the food He has provided to me (since God created everything in the universe, as per our doctrine), that would be a "devotional" practice or exercise since its purpose is to express our devotion to God.
And so, any sort of "bowing" before images, such as a statue, would be a "devotion" and not a "doctrine" since it is something we *do* and not something we *believe*.
Okay - as to your assertion that, according to the Catholic Church, we are "supposed" to (as if it is a requirement) bow down to statues of Mary, well, this is simply not the case.
Bowing before a statue of Mary (or any other statue of anyone else for that matter - including statues of Jesus) is not part of any liturgy (worship service) nor is it a requirement for any Catholic to bow before anything (other than the Eucharist - for example, when we kneel during Mass - but since we *know* that we are before the Real Presence of Christ this is hardly the same thing as kneeling before a statue).
In all my years of being a Catholic I have never once been told that I am required to bow before a statue. Nor has any priest or Pope told me to bow down to any statute . So, it is not true that we are "supposed" to do this. If we are to continue this debate, I respectfully ask that you get your authorities straight and quote once where the catholic church ordered so
Now - all that being said, it is true that many Catholics do, in fact, bow before statues as a *devotional* practice - but not as a matter of doctrine. ( besides your pictures that you posted were doctored. With photoshop anything is possible, but i wouldnt be so childish to extract pictures of miracle crusades or phony protestants to support my argument. Am a lawyer and i only present admissible evidence, not hearsay or pictures from the internet that are unsubstantiated)
And - when any sort of bowing before a statue is done, it is done so out of *respect* for Mary (as a created human being who was blessed by God for a special role) - not out of *submission* as if we consider her to be some sort of divine goddess (as you imply here).
In fact, the mere thought of considering any created being, even Mary, worthy of worship as if he/she is God or divine is repulsive, sickening, and condemned in the strongest possible manner. Heaven forbid!
And - yes - since she is the mother of Jesus we do feel that some measure of respect is due to her. After all, the Bible itself quotes Mary as having said, "All generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48) and so we are mindful of the respect that is due to her (I realize that you think we go overboard - but - I have to wonder if some Protestants don't go overboard the other way - I am often shocked by the lack of respect shown to Mary by many Protestants - possibly because they are afraid of being "too Catholic" if they think of Mary as being special in any way).
And so a more accurate way to state your original premise would be:
According to Catholic devotional practice [not doctrine], it is customary [not a requirement] for Catholics to bow before a statue of Mary out of respect [not submission] for her having been the mother of Jesus.
You also say the Bible teaches that we should not bow down to statue, nor serve them in any way because it is the worship of devils.
Is it only the worship of devils that bothers you? I bet not. I will go one step further than you did and say that the worship of ANYTHING other than God is EVIL and WRONG.
And so, for example, if we worship trees that face eastward, or big-screen TV sets, or a shoe, or a celebrity of sort, or any other created (or imaginary) thing, then such a practice is EVIL - even if a TV set is only a TV set and not a devil in disguise. Agreed? That being said, I will agree with you that idolatry and devil worship is especially evil.
And so, what this boils down to is that we are not to "worship" ANYTHING or ANYONE other than God. Period.
And THAT is what you are objecting to here, right? It is your position that Catholics are "worshipping or praying to" either Mary and/or her statue rather than worship God alone. Right? Please get a life and point to modern catholic church doctrines and not some cheesy article on a website or hearsay gist.
Well, if that is your position then please allow me to clarify for you what we really believe since the worship of Mary (or anyone other than God) is surely NOT what we believe or practice.
Protestants, anti-catholics in general, and Fundamentalist Evangelicals in particular, tend to think that "spiritual" is good (in the godly spiritual sense of course - I am not speaking of evil spirits), and that "matter" is evil (which is why Calvinists, for example, always emphasize our "depraved" nature and that our works are as filthy rags, etc, ). This is also one reason why Fundamentalist non-denominational churches are frequently stark and bare. Nearly all reminders of earthly "things" are removed so as to focus (or so goes the theory) on spiritual matters. Additionally these churches obviously favor faith (a spiritual gift) over and above works (a physical gift) - even those gracious works done by God working within a person (as per Ephesians 2:10).
But the Biblical and historically Christian way of looking at it is that "matter" is part of God's creation too (creation consists of matter AND spirit) and that since God said of His creation "It is good" we must recognize that matter - if it is not used for evil purposes - is a "good" created by God to be used for sacred and holy purposes.
That is why Christ used *created things* in His ministry: He used *mud* to heal a blind man, He baptized with *water*, He anointed with *oil*, He chose *bread and wine* to be the elements used when we "remember" Him during Holy Communion.
And just as all creation "groaned" at the fall of mankind, so too, all of creation will be restored and elevated to a higher plane of existence when Christ comes again in Glory.
God delights in His physical creation and we are not to profane that which He created - nor are we to disparage physical matter as if it is naturally "evil" compared to the "good" within the spiritual realm. It is not an either/or. Both spirit and matter can be "good" and both can be used for holy purposes.
We can see this principle most profoundly in the Incarnation and the Atonement on the Cross. We can most certainly see it in the Bodily Resurrection itself.
Why?
Because God chose to Redeem us through taking on FLESH (matter) and asks us to participate in our redemption (by coming to a faith formed in hope and charity and walking - a physical thing - in works created by Him - Ephesians 2:10).
Furthermore, He chose to Atone for our sins by subjecting His *human* body to death on the Cross (that was precisely why He was able to Atone for us - if He was only divine and not ALSO fully human, then His sacrifice on the Cross would not have Redeemed us - after all, what was His purpose in taking on human flesh in the first place if not to redeem us with it?).
Additionally, the Redemption was completed by His *Bodily Resurrection* which consisted of His real human body and was a physical manifestation of "mission accomplished."
Thomas put his fingers in the wounds to affirm for all of us "Doubting Thomases" that it was His real flesh - and not solely spirit - that arose.
And we can see that the Church is nothing more than an extension of the Incarnation in that it is called to continue His earthly ministry during His absence. Notice that the Church is called by a very physical word: Body. It is the "Body of Christ" - it is not called the "Spirit of Christ".
Therefore, created things are not of and by themselves evil unless they are used for evil purposes (which is exactly what the devil does to humans who fall under his influence - we use our bodies, and things like idols in whatever form, to sin when the devil has his way).
Remember that we were put on this earth in bodily form, but we were created for heaven - and even in heaven we will not throw away our bodies but will receive back our bodies in a Glorified way.
Truly, just because something is created matter (and therefore not necessarily spiritual) that does not make it evil of and by itself.
And so with ALL THAT being said we must now turn to the first Biblical passage which most anti catholics would cite and I’ll finish the whole verse for you instead of taking it piece-meal:
1 And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:1-6
And so we see a few things here. To put a fine point on it, though, we can summarize that we are not to: 1. have other gods, 2. make images of these false gods, and 3. worship these false gods or their images.
That does accurately summarize the intent of this Bible passage, doesn't it? Equally important (at least for the sake of this discussion) is the question: is this what us Catholics do when we bow to statues?
And so this brings us to a number of interesting questions.
For example, does this mean that ALL “images” of a religious nature are banned, or is it only those images association with other gods (or, more accurately, false gods considered by the individual to be true gods) that are condemned? Also, is "bowing" - of and by itself considered evil, or is it only bowing before false gods (considered by the individual to be true gods) that is condemned?
To answer these questions we must see if there are any places within the Bible whereby God has allowed for images and/or bowing WITHOUT either being considered "evil" or condemned. For if these practices are allowed in certain situations and condemned in others then we must honestly examine in which *contexts* are they permissible and which they are not.
And here we find many interesting things in Scripture because we can easily find instances in BOTH of these cases: images and bowing. And in some of *these cases* God has NOT condemned them - in fact in some cases He even *commanded* them.
Regarding images:
If God condemned ALL images (as per the common Pilgrim’s assertion) then one must explain why Moses was *commanded by God* to specifically *make images for use in worshipping* Him (Exodus 25:18-22 and 36:3-35)!
Additionally, in Numbers 21:8-9 Moses is commanded by God to make an *image* of a bronze serpent (an Egyptian god) in order to heal those who had been bitten by poisonous serpents. And here is a real kicker: a person who had been bitten had to *physically* look at the image of the serpent in order to be healed.
Centuries later, in 1 Kings 6:23-29 and 7:23-26, God once again *commanded* the making of graven images when Solomon built the temple.
And so this underscores the reality that when images are used in the worship of the True God - the Only God - then this is acceptable.
Why?
Because those offering worship recognize that the image is just that: a created image that only carries significance insofar as worship of God Himself is concerned and they have NO special divine powers of and by themselves, nor are they being used in the worship of any phony false gods. For otherwise - if the Bible forbade images in ANY or ALL contexts (as Protestants frequently assert) then that would make God disobedient to his own commandment. And God is not untrue to His Nature.
Interestingly enough, most Protestants DO utilize images to aid them in their faith walk. For example, it is common to see a "cross" (which is a graven image) either on a wall, on a necklace, on a tattoo, or even on a car's bumper sticker. Children have Bible Story books (which are images of Biblical people and events), and many Protestants even have statues in the form of Christmas scenes.
Now, are the Protestants who own these images worshipping the story book, or the nativity scene, as if the images are themselves divine and worthy of worship - or - are these "things" - these "graven images" - merely reminders that point us to Christ? Is this an example of God's created matter being used for "good" and "holy" purposes?
It's a fair question.
I am trying to convey to you the Catholic appreciation of Jesus' Incarnation as a REALITY and how this applies overall to images.
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation… Colossians 1:15
Icons (religious images depicting various events or people) are directly connected to this. If Jesus is the visible image of the Father, this addresses the very purpose behind the OT Commandment against graven images.
In three places in John, Jesus compares Himself to the Bronze Serpent fashioned by Moses and elevated on a pole (for example John 3:14 reads: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up…”). That too, the serpent on a pole, was a God-given image.
Since Christ IS “the image” of God we believe that if we deny the use of images in the Church we would be indirectly denying the reality of the Incarnation itself, which was certainly a visible image. It was, in fact, the most profound visual image of all.
For it is by this Incarnated “image” which God gave us a face that we could SEE and LOVE.
All else flows from that.
In the Incarnated Jesus Christ, the God of Israel is no longer "hidden from view," as He was prior to the Incarnation, but is reflected in the face of Jesus:
Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:8-9
Now…since all the saints (both in heaven and on earth) are truly one-Flesh in Christ (by virtue of grace and the Promise of the Covenant), it therefore follows that Jesus, in turn, is reflected within them.
And so the glory of God dwells in our very midst and is, like the Light of the World (compare John 8:12 and Matt 5:14), refracted into a million different places, all of which shine with the same glory of the One God.
This is why venerating any image provided by the Church can never be idolatry PROVIDED, of course, that the image is of one who is “in Christ” and the object of the veneration is solely and exclusively for the glorification and worship of God alone.
Regarding bowing:
Is bowing of and by itself an evil thing - or is the Bible only condemning it when one is bowing to an idol of a false god?
Well,
"Let peoples serve you, and nations BOW down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons BOW down to you. Cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be every one who blesses you!" Genesis 27:29
Simply stated, the Bible is filled with MANY more examples of Biblical personages bowing to each other out of respect. Therefore, according the Bible, as long as one does not consider the object itself that one is bowing to (such as another person) to be a god or an object worthy of worship, then bowing is NOT worshipping and hence is acceptable to God.
When Japanese people bow to each other are they offering "worship"? No.
But, why would anybody want to bow or show a measure of respect for a created object in the first place? That is a good question.
Let me ask you this in response: why do people salute a flag? Do they worship the flag? Do they worship the thing that the flag represents? Do they consider the flag to be divine? Does God condemn someone saluting a flag - or bowing to something that reminds one of something or someone precious?At least i know in your lifetime, you have actually saluted a flag or said the national anthem of your country in front of a flag. Should i now presuppose that also in your lifetime, you have bowed down or saluted an image before? If yes, then we are both idolators according to you and you have no right to critize catholics. Whether its a flag or a statute, it's still an image and you cannot weave your self from this arguement. But i want to also believe that your a rational person and you are not worshipping it, and considering it a god. So it applies to catholics too.
Many people, including myself, will look at old family photos and might kiss the picture of a deceased loved one and might even talk to the photo as if the person were sitting in the room with them.
And it is in THAT sense that Catholics will gaze at a statue of Mary and bow to it *out of respect* for the woman being represented in the statue - the mother of our Saviour. Mary herself is NOT considered to be divine or a goddess worthy of worship. And THAT makes all the difference in the world.
And so, getting back to my earlier comments about the importance of BOTH matter and spirit, one MUST keep in mind that just as God took on flesh for our Redemption, and just as His Church is meant to physically continue His ministry on earth, and just as we are called to walk in His works (Eph 2:10), so too physical objects can serve a higher purpose by reminding us of people and events that point to the saving work of Christ.
We are called to imitate those who went before us (such as Paul for example who plainly called his readers to imitate his example – 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9; Hebrews 13:7) and so statues, just like precious family photos, evoke special memories and inspire special devotion to those have already successfully run the race ahead of us.
And this is done through using God's created matter for SACRED and GOOD PURPOSES (by reminding us of how Mary stood for that which is worthy of imitation: she ALWAYS pointed to Jesus and said to, “…do whatever He tells you.” - John 2:5) while steadfastly rejecting ALL false gods and false idols that are the handiwork of the devil who causes us to worship big-screen TVs and all sorts of modern day idols that stumble us.
I really hope that you pray on this Pilgrim, because, if nothing else, you MUST recognize that Catholics do not worship or PRAY to Mary even if we do offer respectful body language much as we would to an old and precious family photo. To continue to accuse us of worshipping Mary in this regard would be akin to bearing false witness against your Christian brethren. Please understand that, while I honour, respect, and love Mary - I do not "worship" her. Worship is reserved for God alone. Period.
On a final note, I implore you to furnish your arguments with standard authorities from the catholic council, pope, bishops or who ever you think is directly connected with the catholic faith and has been duly accepted by the catholic council as an authority and not some obscure statement written by a 13th century bishop or cardinal that has been discredited by the catholic church and refrain from taking pot shot that you think ought to be and is not what it is. ( you want a proper understanding of the catholic church, learn to read first and scout for the catholic canons and get back to me)
One more thing pilgrim, Since your an expert on pointing out the flaws of the catholic church, wont you be kind enough to tell us where you supposedly worship? I doubt your pastor will be happy with you if you don't tell us where terrible worshippers of the devil as you would like to call us deep down could come to fellowship and change our evil ways! Please don't be a coward. Am not ashamed to be a catholic and hide under the disguise of only the word of God. Please follow suit and tell the whole world who you really are or at least tell us your still on your holy pilgrimage to search for the best faith or denomination and we would understand and clear up this confusion.
P:s Cgift, i have refrained from saying any thing to you because i have discovered you are Pilgrim's puppy without a mind of your own. When your ready to support your little shallow arguments with concrete evidence, give me a shout out. At least take a cue from your mentor pilgrim and do some damning research and not be her yes man.
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
@
