February 7, 2004
Idolatry! The Catholic Veneration of Icons and Relics
Among the many common objections to Catholic doctrine so frequently voiced by Protestants is the objection that Catholics practice routine idolatry in violation of First and Second Commandments. After all, Catholics pray before graven images, not only of Christ, but also the saints and angels. They ritually adorn themselves in religious garb. Their sanctuaries are filled with statues and symbols. They and their priests kiss nearly everything in site. Perhaps worse, they claim that various objects and relics have true power to heal and protect.
As a former Protestant, I myself often preached fiery condemnation for those who practiced this devilish nonsense. Why, I wondered, could Catholics not understand that God alone, in the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, was enough? Statues, icons, and relics were so insignificant in this light. They also deceived Catholics into relying on images for protection rather than the one true God--idolatry!
I would like to take a scriptural tour to look in depth at this issue. To begin, consider the First and Second Commandments. They state:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 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. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Ex. 20:3-5)
Initially, this verse appears to ban all "graven" things, which is often interpreted as statues. This further seems to apply to statues of the angels, saints, and Jesus, since it clearly says "heaven above". However, two things must be considered. First, the remainder of the verse bans adoring (commonly interpreted as "bowing down") and serving the images. Thus, it is clear that the images themselves are not problematic, but only the worship of the images. Second, pagan peoples in the time of Israel worshipped quite literally the heavenly bodies. (See, e.g., Deut. 17:2-5) Thus, the reference in the commandment is clearly to things such as the sun, moon, and stars rather than Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.
Throughout the Scripture, examples abound of statues and images that do not violate the commandment. The most patently obvious are the arc of the covenant and the temple. (Ex. 25:10-22; I Kings 6). What is most fascinating about these examples is that they were adorned with enormous ornate angels and, in the case of the temple, 12 golden oxen. Naturally, it was God Himself who ordered the creation of these images.
Perhaps the most shocking example occurs when the Jews, wandering through the desert, began complaining against the Lord. God sent venomous snakes that bit the people for their wickedness. When they repented, God told Moses, "'Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.'" (Numbers 21:8) That is precisely what happened. This may be contrasted with the experiences of these same wicked people only a few years earlier. When Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, the people became impatient and made a golden calf to worship. God had many of them killed for this wickedness. (Ex. 32) Why should they look upon the image of a snake and live, but create a calf and die?
Not only are there various examples of icons and images, but also of venerated relics and objects. One of the most amazing examples is where some Israelites threw a dead man into Elisha's tomb, and when he touched the bones of the prophet, he was raised to life! (II Kings 13:21) Another example would be where the women touched Jesus' cloak and was healed. (Matt. 9:20-22) Perhaps more directly analogous to the Catholic use of relics, consider that the people used to take hankerchiefs and aprons that had merely touched the apostle Paul, and when they were brought to the sick, the sick would be healed! (Acts 19:11-12) There are innumerable Biblical examples of veneration of relics and miraculacous occurences associated with relics, but this will have to suffice.
In the early Church, similar examples of the use of relics were also common. Augustine states at the very end of City of God:
"When the Bishop Projectius brought the relics of St. Stephen to the town called Aquae Tibiltinae, the people came in great crowds to honour them. Amongst there was a blind woman, who entreated the people to lead her to the bishop who had the HOLY RELICS. They did so, and the bishop gave her some flowers which he had in his hand. She took them, and put them to her eyes, and immediately her sight was restored, so that she passed speedily on before all the others, no longer requiring to be guided."
The question that should be asked, then, is how do all of these Biblical examples fit within the First and Second Commandment? The answer that may be obvious to some is that none of these examples takes credit away from God. The examples of imagery and icons were expressly authorized by God for His own glorification. The Biblical examples of relics associated with miracles are really examples of people putting their faith in God, not the relics. And this is all true. The more difficult examples for the Protestant mind are the fiery serpent and Elisha's bones, because these seem more focused on the object than on God. That brings me finally around to those crazy Catholics.
The first thing to understand is that just like Protestants, Catholics vehemently oppose worship, adoration, or the placing of faith in any created thing--period. The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2111 puts it like this:
"Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition."
So then, why do Catholics use icons if, as shown above, they present a danger of falling into superstition? The answer might be shown by using a short anecdote. Just before my family and I began our process of being received into the Church, we attended Mass with a friend. My youngest daughter of five years was in awe over the striking cross with the crucified Lord standing so prominent at the front of the Church. She talked the entire Mass about how the soldiers nailed him to the cross, how cruel that was, how good Christ was, and how He died for our sins. There was no stopping her. She took the stories she had heard, and seeing visibly the representation of those stories, was overcome with the acknowledgment of Christ's sacrifice.
The use of images is designed to engage all of our senses. We use our ears and bodies constantly. Why not engage our eyes in the act of worship through images that awaken our faith, remembering that what those images awaken our faith towards is the God of all creation!? Surely, just as in the case of the angels and bulls in the temple, it is not wrong to use symbolism as a medium of creating deeper meditation upon our Lord. We can use all the help we can get in that regard.
More than mere symbolism, however, some objects are direct links to God's power and instruments thereof. Consider the fiery serpent, the bones of Elisha, and the aprons that touched St. Paul. Consider the miracles wrought through these objects. What does it mean? First of all, it does not make the item itself powerful. That is to say, no object has spiritual/majical powers of its own accord. However, God has always used what was created to perform miracles. Whether that is by human beings, rivers, Red Sea's, whales, or even objects makes little difference. The point is that God sheds His unending grace on us in so many ways. Protestants limit themselves to what might be called a spiritual grace. Now, of course, there is nothing wrong with spiritual grace. But why have a single potato chip when you can have the whole bag?
Catholic life is filled with the richness of God's grace because faithful Catholics recognize that such grace is dispensed in so many ways. Through prayer, people, and even objects. The objects are decidedly not the summit of Catholic life. They are, however, conduits of that abounding grace, as clearly demonstrated by Scripture. The freedom to accept this grace without feeling stigmatized comes when you recognize that the object itself is not important, but rather the fact that God is using the object to bless people! Just as God uses individuals as instruments of His goodness (though individuals have intrinsic value), so He uses relics of His holy Saints to bless us. The next time you see a Catholic relic or icon, remember to whom it is meant to direct you, and freely accept the abounding grace that our Lord has to offer.
In Christ,
Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Excellent subject and post, Dave!
Posted by: Jay at February 8, 2004 8:18 AMExcellent post Dave. This may be one of the best articles I have ever read on this topic.
In addition to the verses you have mentioned above there are several places in the Gospels where Jesus Himself uses material things to perform miracles.
As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, saying, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. - John 9:6-7
There are similar references made in Mark 7:33, 8:23.
I thing that is most intriguing here is the fact that Jesus didn't have to use spit, clay, and water to cure the blind man but he chose to. There is spiritual significance in the use of material things, often symbolizing something much more profound. Just as a crucifix had a profound effect on your daughter and made real to her the reality of Jesus' suffering and death, so did the clay and water have symbolic meaning when Jesus used it.
Again, I commend you on a well written article. Keep up the great work, and may God bless you and your family.
In Christ,
Joe
Dave,
The NASB translation of Exodus 20:5 is "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."
Let's take another look at your examples.
The phrase "You shall not" excludes Jesus's own use of the clay. The work "make" excludes Elisha's bones. "For yourself" excludes the fiery serpent, the arc of the covenant, and the temple decorations as they were done on the instruction of God. Paul's clothing was made but only for the purpose of clothing Paul.
How does a crucifix with a likeness of Jesus on it escapes from the second commandment? Saying that it is different from worshiping an astronomical object is saying it doesn't violate the first, but why would God having given us the second commandment if the first was enough?
Acts 19:13-19 is a grave warning against exorcisms not performed by Jesus or Paul even though they are done in the name of Jesus. Why doesn't that apply to the Catholic Church?
Posted by: Jon Cohen at February 8, 2004 11:59 PMJon,
In reference to graven images...I guess you have a real hard time in museums ;-) Do you just walk around screaming "Idolatry!" No, of course you don't. Why? Because you understand that statues and pictures in museums have been created to inspire, to portray some person, thing, or idea. I think the main "words" you miss in Exodus 20:5 are you shall not bow down to them and serve them. The direct connection is made between making a "graven image" and "bowing down and serving" it. As Dave stated above, Catholics DO NOT worship statues or pictures, even those of Jesus.
On to your next point. What's condemned in Acts 19:13-19 is not other Christians exorcising demons in Jesus' name, but rather doing so without trully believing in Jesus. For the itinerant Jewish exorcists it was a pride thing, they were doing it to show that they were just as powerful as Paul and from a desire to perform a "sign". Please note that they are called "exorcists", casting out demons is what they did. To say that others believers aren't allowed to perform exorcisisms contradicts the very words of Jesus in Mark 16:15-18:
God into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.
Then again,
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us." - Mark 9:38-40
The itinerant Jewish exorcists weren't for Jesus or Paul, but rather were attempting to display their own authority. Thus they failed and the demons turned on them seeing that they lacked the faith in Christ to hold dominion over them.
In Christ,
Joe
Jon,
Talk about grasping at straws. Your own response admits that the veneration of relics (i.e. the bones and belongings of saints) is not problematic. Bravo for that!
Regarding the Second Commandment, if you are going to use "for yourself" as the words making the ark, temple, and serpent okay, those words can just as easily be applied to images used by Catholics to inspire meditation upon and devotion to our Lord. The fact that God personally and directly commanded the former is irrelevant. Love is the summit of all Christian life, not mere obedience. The Biblical examples were made out of mere obedience; the Catholic examples are made and used out of love (i.e. above and beyond obedience). Surely a Protestant can understand that.
Your reference to the clay is rather sloppy on your part. First, you do not initially indicate how it would violate either the First or Second Commandment. Second, you seem to be indicating that God could violate one of the Commandments! So, pray tell, are you on the "Christ and Mary Magdala were shacking up" bandwagon? This is simply ridiculous. Remember that as a man, Christ was just as much under the law as everyone else.
Finally, to the point regarding the difference between the First and Second Commandment. The answer--there isn't any difference! That is precisely why the Catholic Church teaches that the Protestant First and Second is actually collectively the First. In Protestant Bibles, the Exodus 20:1-17 passage is broken up to appear as though the commandments were issued according to Protestant belief. Of course, those divisions were inserted by the translators, and do not appear in original Hebrew.
Consider that the Protestant Second Commandment contains two "You shall not's". One for making graven images, and the other for worshipping them. To separate these two from the prohibition on worshipping other gods is not very well-thought out, as they both clearly address the same subject. Moreover, the Protestant creates a problem by looking solely to the first mandate in the Second Commandment regarding the making of graven images. How can the Jew bow down to something that has not been made? Perhaps more pertinent for a Protestant is that taken by itself, the first part of the Second Commandment prohibits even family portraits!
Note, that the Jews have always kept the Protestant First and Second Commandments as a single commandment, just like the Catholics. However, they label it the Second Commandment (viewing the opening statement as the First Commandment). Note also that the "ten commandments" actually contain 14 mandates. See how confusing this can get when there is no authoritative source for interpretation? More to the point, you see how Protestant beliefs really aren't "sola scriptura"? Most Protestants believe that the Bible says "ten commandments" somewhere. It doesn't! This is Protestant tradition! I'm sorry that I had to use that word, but sometimes tough love is the only way. :-)
In Christ,
Dave
Dave, It's interesting how you have avoided the subject and began to bring forward the ancient Hebrew texts. If you go and do that, you might as well ask your Pope why the original canon which was decided upon by the Church fathers, never included all of the "extra" books that the catholic bible contains. Why is that? Were the Hebrews not the original writers and people of God? Ok, to my point. When you look at a man made image of Jesus on the cross, who is the man playing the role of Jesus? Does anyone know what Jesus looks like? It isn't written anywhere. For that matter, what does Mary, Peter and any of the other 1st century saints look like? Dont know? Me neither. So how can a man make a sculpture and call it a representation of a saint? Millions and millions of lost catholics have these images of strangers filling thier houses. This goes beyond the commandments where God clearly states to not have images. I pray that one day, the catholic and orthodox religions will simply quit with the paganism in which idols and statues must be a part of thier lives and worship. Interesting enough, Jesus surely said to Thomas in John 20:29- Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Do you get the point yet? Jesus said why must you see to believe in me? How weak is your faith?
About the above comment with the snake which Moses made. In 2 Kings 18:4 Hezekiah actually destroys the snake because the people began to see it as a symbol of God and burned inscents to it. Which is the same exact thing that catholics do when they approach a statue of Mary or Peter and light candles and say prayers to them. No catholic can deny this! I used to live as a catholic for 20 years, I did it myself.
2 Kings 18:4-He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.
People are naturally attracted to images to satisfy thier need for substance, and these statues and images are the cure for the need.
We are to pray to God and God alone. He alone is the Lord, not mary. Why catholics pray to mary is beyond me. That is a form of worship, is it not? the prayer Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women...you know the rest.....Holy Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners now and forever!
What is this? Is this not a form of worship to someone other than God? You see, God knew the weakness of people. This is why he said to not include anything in Heaven or on earth. Very plain and simple. Do Not Pray To Anyone Else but GOD! HE has said it himself. Why do catholics feel that they can stop short of his standard? The Law is the Law, follow it, dont change it!
God Bless You
Posted by: Ben at September 27, 2004 2:05 AMBen,
Wow - you have an interesting view of history. I'm guessing this is the "Dan Brown School of History"?
Anyway, the original canon decided on by the Church did include the entire Old Testament canon we currently use (the one Martin Luther removed books from). It's interesting - not even Martin Luther argued that the canon didn't include them from the beginning! He simply looked at the current Jewish Scriptures and threw out the ones they didn't include.
A question I'm fascinated with: If you interpret the Ten Commandments to ban any "graven images", then did God sin by requiring graven images on the synagogue built just a few chapters later? Or does your interpretation simply change for that passage of Scripture?
If you worshipped statues, then you committed a sin while being a Catholic. The statues are merely to remind us of the Holy qualities these men and women had that we are to emulate. Where does the Catechism state we should worship these statues? Please quote it for me.
Also please tell me which verse in the Bible says "Do Not Pray To Anyone Else but GOD" - I haven't seen that one yet. I recommend you read this article on praying to the saints.
Look forward to your citations of your Biblical quotes.
God bless,
Jay
Very interesting subject and very well written, and it is something that I ponder about myself.
I am of the Jewish faith, but I except all forms of faiths. I believe that in essence, all faiths are similar.
But my major problem with Catholisizm is the idea that you talked about, esspecially becuse of the first and second commandments.
I do believ in god, but don't follow the rules of the religion that I was born to. I believe that god is a in and surrounds all of us but I cannot imagine it in a symbolic way. For me everything is part of it, including the sun and the moon, as well as the poeple.
About the pagans at the time of the old testament, they had and used statues and figures of their gods (Ashtoret and Ba'al for example) and of course the Romans that had statues and images of all their god. I believe that part of the image making of the image of christ, is part of the Roman takeover over christianity. Instead of having dozens of gods they transformed them into one, but kept the idea of an image to it, as well as the image sof the saints and angels. Also important is the looks of Jesus, who looks more European then Mediteranian...
Another thought is, that like the burning bush that Moses saw in the desert, and was a representation of god, Jesus is as well. But we (Jews) never took that image (of the bush) and made it into a symbol of god. God has no symbol or image in our faith, even thou god showed itself in the bible in dozen ways. (all of waht i said doesn't concerns the fact that Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith).
Have a good week and bless will be upon the late pope.
Posted by: optimuse at April 3, 2005 11:38 PMOptimuse,
In terms of the image of God, you are quite correct to note that Judaism does not and has not venerated any attempt to capture an image of the Father. In fact, drawing on the Psalms, one might say that the natural world is the Jew's greatest reflection of God, as it is His creation. (This is an overstatement, as the revealed Law is the "greatest" of God's revelation, a point that I think you miss in accepting Creation while rejecting the Law.) However, Catholicism recognizes the second person of God in the "God-man" Jesus Christ. This represents a significant departure from a purely Hebraic understanding of God, because God has chosen to reveal Himself in the fullest way possible: actually becoming a part of His creation. This Christ actually embodies and unites all the Law and Creation. Thus, Catholic images of Christ, regardless of their visual authenticity or accuracy, are important commentaries on the humanity and revelatory completeness of our Saviour. We believe and profess that the action of God becoming a man was critical to perfection of the sin-abating sacrafice He would make. It is thus natural that we should venerate images of Christ, which both affirm and demonstrate His humanity.
All that having been said, you may be interested to note the complete lack of images of God the Father. This is very classical in that while Christ is the identifiable "logos" of God, a finite expression of the divine, the Father is the infinite reality of God. This is not to say that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father, merely that the Father is the unlimited person of God while the Son is the manner in which God limits Himself (e.g. for the purpose of communicating Himself to His creation, or for creating in the first instance). I hope this helps. Thank you for the warm wishes for our Holy Father's soul.
In Christ,
Dave
Gentleman,
Sorry I am late in adding my two cents. But I just found your blog....and it is very interesting dialogue. I am compelled to give my testimony for what it is worth.
I was raised very strict Catholic. My mother was convent bound before my grandmother cried that she would be without grandchildren. So mother relented, got married and had almost a dozen of us. I am the third child. I went to church every Sunday, lit candles for the dead, prayed to the various statues - Mary, Joseph, Jesus, St. Jude, St. Thomas...you name the saint, I prayed to them. I was infant baptised. Went to catechism, memorized prayers, prayed the rosary...blah blah blah.
I was unmoved, unchanged, uninspired. Frankly I didn't know God at all. But I had the rosary, the liturgy book and the white dress.
Because Catholics don't encourage bible reading, I had no idea what God wanted from me except confession, communion, offerings and physical presence every Sunday while I sat in the pew half asleep because the Priest read one of 7 or eight bible stories that they told over and over - you know the ones, prodigal son, wine at wedding feast, etc. They were good stories but, there was more to tell, wasn't there?
So here I am stuck in the Catholic trap -I need the priest to interpret what God has to say to me and all of the priests I have ever met where stuck in the same traditional process of reading something created by someone else years ago. After church, I would ask questions. My responses were irritating to them at best and irreverant at worst. I thought, OK the homily is their opportunity to inspire us with words that I can use for real living. I just need to find one priest that is really hearing from God. Off I went in search of the Catholic church and priest that had something real and meaningful to say to me about what God wanted me to know. I looked for about ten years as an adult and finally gave up. I was convinced that none existed in Michigan or Ohio. I was bored, irritated, and more recently appauled at the sinful messes that many priests have fallen into. If these are the guys that God has divinely selected, I would think He would have first inspired them to preach, but if not at least would have protected them from homosexuality, pediphilia, and so on. All you really find is the institution of the church hiding the sin and moving the priest. No, something was wrong with the "rocks" that God was selecting, or maybe was it the system that man had corrupted by no longer educating the flock about bible teaching that lead to absolute power being held in a few men's hands at the top proclaiming to be God's messengers. I didn't know. But I smelled something I didn't like and didn't fit with what I was taught about infallability, supposed celibacy, and repentence.
Somehow after 10 years of searching and 5 or more years of sitting at home. I was invited to a protestant church and then another. Wow, what a difference!!!! No man above another man imposing their brand of religion. I could have a relationship with God through His scripture. It took about 5 years, reading the bible to shed my previous bondage of what I thought God thought of me and how he wanted me to behave. I am now adult baptised -praise God(the first one I am now fully convinces was a silly, if not presumptuous party, thrown by my family, as I was too young to know about Jesus). We have no statues or crosses or other symbols exploding in other churches that only serve to reduce or dilute the true meaning of Jesus sacrifice, or worse take the proper attention away from the true focus of our admiration. I am inspried, transformed and new person. I only now know what scipture was teaching me. I needed that transformation. I needed spiritual eyes and ears and only now have them. I love God with all my heart and it is liberating beyond the imagination. It is incredible. The love that brings me to my knees in eternal gratitude. What a contrast to my previous condition!!!
I can tell you this...the rest of my poor family is trapped in the dead ceremy of the Catholic church, most of my adult brothers do not go at all. The others are completely uninspired and live lives that do not glorify God. My oldest sister is into New Age. You know that praying to dead saints is not terribly unlike what the new agers say, so this really wasn't much of a leap for her. In fact her religion prays to St. Jerome and they have his picture, statue, they light votive candles and all the things he had said are repeated like prayers. I guess they read St. Jerome writings much like a gospel. Jesus is just another saint in their "ascended masters" scenario of godliness where anyone and everyone can become god. And why not, with all he saints that Catholics pray to. This is what can happen when you flood the church with things that are not focussed on Jesus. Jesus has to be the ONLY focus. The Holy Spirit is not directing people to worship Mary or St. Jude or St. Jerome. Now I am not saying these human beings did not do great things on the earth? No, they did. But are they worthy of worship? No, only God is worthy of worship. So here is the ultimate danger of the Catholic Church...dilute the message of the cross and you have to explain much. Hunt around, there aren't alot of bible scholars in churches. You have alot of tradition holders though. Too many are just plain not that interested anymore in trying to get close to God. The tragedy was that I WAS paying attention, for years, and it was sooo dry and irrelevant. This is the thing that must be fought the hardest. The apathy and disinterest. I have even read something in this site about the new music was being introduced at the Catholic mass that people liked and so it was considered bad. It was bad that the music was appealing enough to distract from the sermon. It's a point. I think the real point is not to say "Lose the music - it's competing with my sermon", it's "Let's get an inspired sermon to go along with that inspired music!"
I am not trying to bash Catholics. I am praying and hoping that Catholics hear me and hear that they cannot just rest on tradition. They have to test all things according to scripture. They have to know who God is and if they are not on that path of learning who He is and what He wants for you in your life - then find Him. Don't give up. He is not ONLY found in the Catholic church. My expereince is that I would still be a lost sheep had I stayed.
I am unconvinced the Catholic church has been testing against scripture all of the things they've added. They use old saints writings with as much reverence and weight as the original scripture. How then can you argue with the Mormons, or with new agers like Marianne Williamson with their "New Revelation" - you can't. You've not only opened that door, you've kicked it in. And because you have a scripture ignorant church (I'm talking about the congregants), they'll fall for anyone who comes along with teaching that's interesting or inspiring. Because they're asleep in the pews or they stopped coming years before.
Remember, the teachers in Jesus day thought with all of their hearts that they were doing God's will in the earth. They were following the old testament (which was the entirety of the bible) in that day.
Could the Catholic church have the same problem? With their seats at the banquets, everyone calling them rabbi...lovers of themselves and not God. Hmm.
God Bless!
Nancy
Jay,
"Also please tell me which verse in the Bible says "Do Not Pray To Anyone Else but GOD" - I haven't seen that one yet. "...who said that again..was it Jay. Well, you have the most unChristian view i have ever heard. Are you saying that God is not the only one who we should pray to? Not only is praying to others a pagan tradition, but you can't mean praying to Jesus, because God and Jesus are one in the same, along with the Holy Spirit. Would you be PLEASING God if you did pray to someone else? I don't think so...and if that isn't your aim, then I'm sorry, you aren't Christian.
David
P.S. Tell me where you can find where it says to worship other gods in the bible, and look in the Ten Commandments, it shows that God is the only one you should worship or pray to. In 1 Timothy 2:5 it says that "For there is One God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus"..since God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are one, there is no one else to pray to....so good luck trying to prove your point.
Posted by: David at September 10, 2005 10:08 PMDavid,
You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean - "pray" and "worship" are NOT the same thing. Here's what I wrote to Nikki in a reply to a previous post...
I suspect that you are confusing the word "pray" with the word "worship" - whilst we worship through prayer, not every prayer is worship. Here are some definitions...
Pray:
1. To utter or address a prayer or prayers to God, a god, or another object of worship.
2. To make a fervent request or entreaty.
v. tr.
3. To utter or say a prayer or prayers to; address by prayer.
4. To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: "Pray be careful."
5. To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.
6. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.
David - if you've ever asked a friend to pray for you were you worshipping them? If a friend asks you to pray for them were they worshipping you? Of course not.
Posted by: fidens at September 12, 2005 6:06 AMFidens, keep in mind that Protestants do not (not sure if it is because they can not or because they will not) distinguish between prayer and worship. For a Protestant, prayer and worship is to be directed towards God alone - anything else would be idolatry. To mention the practice of asking others to pray for you just encourages Protestants to do less of that.
To a Catholic, the distinction between worship and prayer is obvious. For example, consuming the Eucharist as Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, worshipping the Eucharist, and genuflecting before the Eucharist are three acts of worship which Catholics do for Christ that they will never do for Mary or a Saint. These acts are practically forbidden for Protestants.
Because Protestants have cut themselves off from these acts of worship, the lesser acts or prayer and devotion have become a stumbling block for they can see nothing higher than their acts of prayer and praise and thus, they conclude in good conscience, that acts of prayer and praise belong to God alone and misinterpret 1Tim2:5.
Before encouraging Protestants to ask Mary to pray for us, we need to encourage them to worship, adore, consume, and genuflect before the Lord who is truly present in the Eucharist. Until they do this, they will not see the difference between prayer and worship.
Something else Protestants may find helpful: the phrase "praying to Mary" or "praying to Saints" only occurs in abstract theological discussion and never during the practical life of a Catholic believer. If you listen to the "prayers to Mary", you will notice that they always say something like "pray for us" rather than something like "save us" or "we pray to you".
Posted by: Broken Record at September 12, 2005 11:35 AMJay,
Although I know what you are trying to say, I'll just flat out say it, DON'T PRAY TO ANYONE BUT JESUS, and through Jesus you will get to God. I never said you couldn't pray FOR someone, but the only one you should pray TO in order to make those prayers come true is Jesus. And if you were trying to make a point, I wouldn't have put that first definition of PRAY in there. A Christian should only PRAY to God through Jesus, and in the defintion included the informal word "god", like a pagan god, and another object of worship, which can only mean an idol. Comment again please.
David
Posted by: David at September 16, 2005 10:18 PMWhomever,
It's me again, and I read in the last post this quote, but I don't know who said it: "If you listen to the 'prayers of Mary', you will notice that htey always say something like 'pray for us' rather than something like 'save us' or we 'pray to you'". Pray for yourself geeze. First of all, you dont need Mary to pray for you, all you need to do is pray to Jesus. Next, it is not Biblical to pray through Mary, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that she can pray for you and get your message to God. Furthermore, Mary died long ago, and it doesn't say anywhere that she rose to heaven and is living there. Telling her to pray for you is useless, for in Ecclesiastes 9:5 it says "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." So sorry, just pray to Jeus, it's easier.
David
P.S. Pray to saints, or even venerating them, is not in the Bible, and only God has that right.
Posted by: David at September 16, 2005 10:42 PMDavid,
So is it okay for you to ask someone (another person) to pray for you? If so, why? According to your logic this is a mistake since only you should pray for yourself, right?
I recommend this article on praying to the Saints.
By the way, if your interpretation is correct, we have no reward after our death, right? So why even try?
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
You said: "But the way, if your interpretation is correct, we have no reward after our death, right? So why even try?"
Okay, first, you aren't supposed to be good because you want the reward at the end of the road, you're good because you want to be good in your heart, so there goes that theory.
Second, Jesus is the Mediator between GOD AND MAN. Its fine to let someone pray for you (Man) to get your prayers to Jesus (God), but it isn't okay to ask someone who has already died to pray for you...THEY'RE DEAD.
My next point is about you saying that we have no reward after our death, that does not mean we aren't going to have reward in heaven, that means that we have ONE CHANCE in this life with our physical body (unless of course we are risen by Jesus), and when we die, there is no more physical life, and no more rewards in this life. When they are risen by Jesus again, they will have the greatest reward they will ever know!
David
Posted by: David at September 17, 2005 5:54 PMDavid,
The question is valid. If heaven is our reward, then you can't possibly believe that we get no reward, right?
Also, why do you believe that the dead are cut off? Jesus Himself says that they rejoice when someone on earth comes back to God. In other words, your point must be wrong - Jesus said you were wrong. Correct?
A reward after death is still a reward.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
my computer is slow, but my friend updated me on your next comment. This isn't MY point, this comes directly from the bible. All you are trying to do right now is disproving the Bible, the inspired word of God. You aren't listening to my point. IN PHYSICAL LIFE THERE IS NO REWARD LEFT. Worldly pleasures will not matter. I believe that by believe what is in our heart and being good fromt eh heart, the reward is heaven. I did not say that acting good from the heart gets no reward. I said that after you die, you have no more physical reward until you are risen again by Christ.
Jesus says that Heaven rejoices. According to the Revelation, only a few have been taking up to heaven. The rest are still asleep waiting to be awakened by Jesus. In a way, they have been temporary cut off. But them being cut off doesn't matter becuase, if they are dead in Christ, then they will already be chosen by God and have the Seal of God. In this light, that means that when Christ comes back, them being "cut off" has no difference if they are already faithful to God and chosen by God.
When you die, it is too late to come back to Christ. You had your chance. What you made of your life is yours. But this being said, I believe that God judges you on the amount of light in you. so if you know you're sinning and you sin, it's a valid sin.
I don't really believe I am wrong because the text i quoted is in the Bible. I did not paraphrase or anything. I just said what i saw.
David
P.S. It's kinda late, so there might be some stuff that i find out i messed up on, im tired. :)
I feel blessed to belong to the Catholic Church...a church that believes that our souls will not die after our bodies do.
In that light, I am constantly asking my brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for me, no matter what faith, whether they are physically dead or not. I know that Christ hears our prayers for each other.
I feel so sad for those who do not wish to participate in the community Christ has blessed us with in the church...and those who do not believe in the power of our brother's and sister's prayers, especially those who have lived exemplary lives of love here on earth.
Please keep me in your prayers!
In HIM,
Beth
Are you sure that Catholics do not bow down on those images? Everytime the feast of sto. nino or the young Jesus is observed many devotees of different catholic sectors would have a street dance and they would tend to kneel and bow down shouting "Viva SR. Sto. Nino!!!" Is this statement not enough to prove it, then come here in the Philippines, the 3rd most christianized country having 80% of the entire population as Catholics. What about the holy nazarene, people would have a procession following the black nazarene, they would shout and cry for them to be cured. Prophet Isaiah is right when he said, "they set up in its place and there it stands. From that spot it cannot move. Though one cries to it, it doesnt answer, it cannot save him from his trouble". The way you justify your proposition is not that concrete becuase it is not only when you bow down to them and worship them that is forbidden but also making one of them. Exodus20 "..You shall not make for yourself a graven image..." because those who will make them. Do you know what will happen to them. Psalms115 "Those who make them will be like them and so who trust them". A statue cannot do what it likes for it is described to be useless, if God is to compare you with a statue then you too are also useless in the eyes of God..Simple analogy isn't it.
Posted by: ace_c. at February 22, 2007 11:35 PMAce,
Bowing down and worshipping are two different things. Many people bow before the Queen of England but they do not worship her. Many people bow down to tie their shoelaces but they do not worship their shoes.
Catholics do bow to statues as a sign of respect and reverence for the person they depict. We do not worship statues or saints - though it may look like we do. After all, we do sing songs of praise about the saints, we ask them to pray for us, and we try to imitate their example. But we do not consider this worship although a Protestant probably would.
For Catholics, worship runs much deeper than music, intercession, and imitation. It involves adoring, genuflecting before, and consuming the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord under the appearance of ordinary bread and wine (something Protestants do not usually do). It involves repeatedly asking him to have mercy on us and to save us from our sins (something Evangelicals do only once in their lives).
Given how Protestant teaching has impoverished its members and denied them the opportunity to worship Our Lord the way Catholics do, it is only natural that their members would mistake the lesser activities of singing, imitating, and interceding for true worship.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at February 23, 2007 11:17 AMI am a Catholic and understand your frustration, but I am here to shed some light. To say that we worship graven images is simply not true. Catholics only worship the Eucharist, the true presence of God. We honor other religious figures such as angels and saints because we believe that they have mirrored their lives after Jesus, deserve recognition, and have the power given by God to intercede for us below. Why do you think thousands of miracles have occurred in the name of saints unless they had that ability from God, and there in, his blessing for us to pray to them? Please understand that we only worship the Eucharist and discontinue this misunderstanding. The saints and angels are wonderful people who, just as the Trinity, we have the ability to communicate with and learn from every day. A picture or statue simply reminds us of their fortitude and great love of God, and encourages us to do the same.
Posted by: understanding makes the world go 'round at January 14, 2008 6:36 PMDavid,
If you died and went to heaven, would you pray for anyone?
skelly
Posted by: skelly at January 14, 2008 10:25 PM
