[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by .eXe)
Wish I had pictures to show you but they were most certainly Catholic. I've been to them only a few times as they were the only churches close by in the city where I attended university. They were called St. marks Cathedral Bascilica and St. peters Cathedral Bascilica.

here's a picture of one of them I got from the website: if you look in the middle you will see the statue in the middle

Attachment 148933

OK I've got a better idea of what you're saying now but the general point still stands. In no way does Mary take precedence over the Cross in the Catholic faith

[.eXe]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
OK I've got a better idea of what you're saying now but the general point still stands. In no way does Mary take precedence over the Cross in the Catholic faith

Thanks for clarifying

To be fair, at no point in the church were we actually worshiping the statue. I just thought it odd for the statue to be there in the first place. But I hear ya

[navarre]

(Original post by rac1)
well selfless acceptance at least...
http://bible.cc/luke/1-38.htm

She still didn't have a choice. If the Bible is clear on one point, it's that things go very badly for those who try and take on God. And we're talking very badly. Plagues, massacres, the works.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by .eXe)
Wish I had pictures to show you but they were most certainly Catholic. I've been to them only a few times as they were the only churches close by in the city where I attended university. They were called St. marks Cathedral Bascilica and St. peters Cathedral Bascilica.

here's a picture of one of them I got from the website: if you look in the middle you will see the statue in the middle

Attachment 148933

Right below the statue of the Blessed Virgin though is the Tabernacle, which contains within it Jesus Christ himself present in the Holy Eucharist.

[rac1]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
You've clearly been unfortunate in the Catholic churches you've been to then. The sermon is hugely important and there are plenty of good preachers about My own parish priest is a scary fo but he gives a damn impressive sermon and has a good sense of humour too, for example




Statues of Mary never replace a cruxifix in a Catholic church. Not quite sure where you're getting this all from Are you sure the churches you went to were Catholic?





You tell em!

lol, thanks

[rac1]

(Original post by .eXe)
Wish I had pictures to show you but they were most certainly Catholic. I've been to them only a few times as they were the only churches close by in the city where I attended university. They were called St. marks Cathedral Bascilica and St. peters Cathedral Bascilica.

here's a picture of one of them I got from the website: if you look in the middle you will see the statue in the middle

Attachment 148933

You've been banned now but I'm going to reply anyway! I had a look on google for 'St Peter's Cathedral Basilica, Canada' and I'm fairly sure that it's not even a statue of Our Mother Mary.

In fact my congregation borrows the Anglican church for an hour on a Sunday so we normally have a crucifix and rarely a statue of Mary.

[rac1]

(Original post by navarre)
She still didn't have a choice. If the Bible is clear on one point, it's that things go very badly for those who try and take on God. And we're talking very badly. Plagues, massacres, the works.

you aren't the first person to ask these questions

http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&...have+free+will

[rac1]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Right below the statue of the Blessed Virgin though is the Tabernacle, which contains within it Jesus Christ himself present in the Holy Eucharist.

God bless you!

[yawn]

(Original post by gltw)
It's quite simple. God's law states that his people are not to make and use images like pagan religions do.

Exodus 20:4 KJV 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:

You'll notice it says "Thou shalt not make" which shows us that if God commands something to be made ie. the Ark of the Covenant etc then it is right in the sight of God. Only when God directly commands a image to be made should it be done. For example the Golden Calf made as a symbol for God was forbidden. Exodus 32:7 KJV And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: (8) They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Often people want something physical to worship, to look to but God tells Christians to look to God alone not to images and idols.

I thought we'd addressed this before, my friend. Maybe it wasn't you but someone else who claimed that the First Commandment forbade statues in churches, and that both they and photos in wallets are inherently evil. What is forbidden is 'graven' images; ie cut, chiselled or engraved. God's commandment against graven images refers to the worship of idols shaped by human hands, in the style of the pagans.

In fact, on many occasions God Himself specifically directs the Israelites to fashion images of various types. So clearly it is the worship of such images that is an abomination, not the images themselves.

We see God directing the Israelites to decorate the ark of the covenant with images of angels in Ex. 25:18...and also in Chapter 37, v7-9.
In 2 Chron. 3:10-13, "Graven images" of angels were constructed for the temple as well: "For the room of the holy of holies he made two cherubim of carved workmanship which were then overlaid with gold. The wings of the cherubim spanned twenty cubits..." This could never have been permitted if images were forbidden by God.

In Chapter 4:4 of the same book figure of twelve metal oxen stood in temple: "It rested on twelve oxon, three facing north, three west, three south and three east, with their haunches all toward the centre..."

In 1 Kings 6:23, under his own volition, Solomon had cherubim made for the temple; God did not command it, but neither was their presence offensive to Him. Also, it is quite clear than any images of wood must have been "graven" according to your sources.

Littered throughout scripture are accounts of temples being adorned with embroderies, sculptures, images and even the account of the Israelites being saved after Moses followed God's directive and fashioned a figure of a snake and held it up before the people.

It is thus quite obvious that the commandment did not forbid all images of physical beings. No, the first commandment forbids the worship of false gods, not the simple fashioning of images. Nowhere do the scriptures actually forbid us from fashioning images, graven or otherwise. They merely forbid us from worshipping images, which of course, no Christian, Catholic or otherwise, could ever conceive of doing.

Now what perplexes me is that so many of the Reformers and their followers to this present day, persist in condemning the Catholic Church for that which God has not forbidden as a consequence of their seemingly wilful attempts to denigrate the Church that Christ instituted, and the Church that they faithfully followed until the Reformation.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by yawn)

Now what perplexes me is that so many of the Reformers and their followers to this present day, persist in condemning the Catholic Church for that which God has not forbidden as a consequence of their seemingly wilful attempts to denigrate the Church that Christ instituted, and the Church that they faithfully followed until the Reformation.

Haters are always gonna hate, no matter the rebuffals that we may supply

Good to see you back. Will quote you in Cath Soc so you can hear about my graduation from Oxford

[gltw]

Hi Yawn,

I can't remember if we have discussed this before, possibly we skimmed over it.

(Original post by yawn)
I thought we'd addressed this before, my friend. Maybe it wasn't you but someone else who claimed that the First Commandment forbade statues in churches, and that both they and photos in wallets are inherently evil. What is forbidden is 'graven' images; ie cut, chiselled or engraved. God's commandment against graven images refers to the worship of idols shaped by human hands, in the style of the pagans.

In the context of these verses it is clear that God is referring to worship, the first commandment already establishes the direction of Israel's worship. The second commandment adds to this further stating that images in all forms of service are forbidden then in v6 it adds that you should not worship them..

(Original post by yawn)
In fact, on many occasions God Himself specifically directs the Israelites to fashion images of various types. So clearly it is the worship of such images that is an abomination, not the images themselves.

As I mentioned. There are exceptions. When God himself designs the manner of service that should be taken then it should be strictly followed. Soloman followed strictly the order of the creation of the images, he did not create a new design.

Never did God ever command that anything, in any way, should be made to symbolise him. Yet your buildings are filled with images of God the Son. It is not only a problem in Catholicism. Many protestant churches have images of Jesus.

(Original post by yawn)
It is thus quite obvious that the commandment did not forbid all images of physical beings. No, the first commandment forbids the worship of false gods, not the simple fashioning of images.

First commandment- Exodus 20:3 KJV Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Second Commandment- Exodus 20:4 KJV 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:

I know your church split it up differently but that alters the meaning. The first clearly already establishes that nothing else should be worshipped other than God. The second command forbids any images in the manner of worship and any role in service; unless God says otherwise.

(Original post by yawn)
the Church that Christ instituted

[DanBlake]

(Original post by Addzter)
Eye candy. A statue of Mary stops queers staring at Jesus Christ's toned, rippling, bloodied torso when they're supposed to be worshipping.

lol good one mate

but seriously, i think the statues are supposed to show appreciation and adoration, as whilst Jesus was obviously holy, he is, well, a god. Mary isn't a god, but the statues are to show that she is like a god, a Jesus was the fut of her womb

[yawn]

(Original post by gltw)
Hi Yawn,

I can't remember if we have discussed this before, possibly we skimmed over it.



In the context of these verses it is clear that God is referring to worship, the first commandment already establishes the direction of Israel's worship. The second commandment adds to this further stating that images in all forms of service are forbidden then in v6 it adds that you should not worship them..



As I mentioned. There are exceptions. When God himself designs the manner of service that should be taken then it should be strictly followed. Soloman followed strictly the order of the creation of the images, he did not create a new design.

Never did God ever command that anything, in any way, should be made to symbolise him. Yet your buildings are filled with images of God the Son. It is not only a problem in Catholicism. Many protestant churches have images of Jesus.



First commandment- Exodus 20:3 KJV Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Second Commandment- Exodus 20:4 KJV 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:

I know your church split it up differently but that alters the meaning. The first clearly already establishes that nothing else should be worshipped other than God. The second command forbids any images in the manner of worship and any role in service; unless God says otherwise.

It's good to chat with you again, gltw. I have enjoyed our discussions in the past, and this one is proving enjoyable (for me, at least) also.

The Jews were forbidden to have images under the Old Covenant (with a few exceptions – including that which you mention). The reason for this was that the temptation to worship the image was strong for them. It was C. S. Lewis who said that it was the destiny of that people to be turned from the thing that resembled God to God Himself.

“When God the Son becomes incarnate and becomes the express image of the invisible God (Heb 1:3), our relationship to images changes. The prohibition of images is discovered to be provisional until the true incarnate Image appears. Images are now permissible since God Himself has become a kind of image in Christ. Thus our images of God are now windows into His Incarnation rather than fertility images, figments of our imagination, or idols. We do not worship images. We see through them to the Incarnate God and His saints, who are also images of Christ.” [catholic.com]


God’s commandments as recorded in Deuteronomy 5:6–21 and Exodus 20:2–17 seem to add up to more than ten, yet ten commands they remain.

Traditionally, the early Church fathers taught that prohibition of idolatry is considered part of the first commandment because it makes best sense. Fashioning graven images and then worshipping such is a seamless transition which makes a whole.

And it’s as well to remember that for 1500+ years it was accepted in this form. It was only with the advent of the Reformation that idolatrous worship was assimilated into a second commandment for reasons best known to themselves although it does give their successors an opportunity to distort Catholic practice!

[aljolson]

(Original post by KCosmo)
She's supposed to be the only person to have lived without sin and stuff. The "immaculate conception" isn't the conception of jesus, but the conception of mary, who is again the only person without to have lived without sin. She's in effect, the best a human can achieve.

I'm an atheist, but I went to a catholic state school, so I've been drilled on this

I thought Jesus was supposed to have five brothers, this would imply six virgin births, unless original sin is not considered a sin. Of course intercourse is not necessary for conception anyway.

[gltw]

(Original post by yawn)
The Jews were forbidden to have images under the Old Covenant (with a few exceptions – including that which you mention). The reason for this was that the temptation to worship the image was strong for them. It was C. S. Lewis who said that it was the destiny of that people to be turned from the thing that resembled God to God Himself.

The reason they were forbidden was not because of temptation but for what images are: an abomination. They were told not to desire them for they are abominable.

Deuteronomy 7:25 KJV The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

(Original post by yawn)
“When God the Son becomes incarnate and becomes the express image of the invisible God (Heb 1:3), our relationship to images changes. The prohibition of images is discovered to be provisional until the true incarnate Image appears. Images are now permissible since God Himself has become a kind of image in Christ. Thus our images of God are now windows into His Incarnation rather than fertility images, figments of our imagination, or idols. We do not worship images. We see through them to the Incarnate God and His saints, who are also images of Christ.” [catholic.com]

Nowhere in scripture does it specify that the second commandment was only temporary. Jesus Christ is the image [Heb 1:3- literally stamp:χαρακτήρ] of God. But that does not give us permission to attempt to recreate this image, for we know Jesus Christ is eternal and has always been the person of the Godhead who is the image of God. Our imagination should be kept separate from our faith.

(Original post by yawn)
Traditionally, the early Church fathers taught that prohibition of idolatry is considered part of the first commandment because it makes best sense. Fashioning graven images and then worshipping such is a seamless transition which makes a whole.

And it’s as well to remember that for 1500+ years it was accepted in this form. It was only with the advent of the Reformation that idolatrous worship was assimilated into a second commandment for reasons best known to themselves although it does give their successors an opportunity to distort Catholic practice!

Well the Philonic division is the system the Jews used and protestants use today and it was developed before the early church fathers. It was sometime in the fifth century when Catholics decided to change it which has altered the meaning so as to allow images.

It is interesting, many evangelicals convert to Catholicism when they read the early church fathers, showing support for Catholic doctrine; they seem to think that because they wrote shortly after the church began that they must have the teaching of Jesus Christ but they seem to forget that even in Corinth, for example, they strayed far from teaching. They were trained and taught by Paul yet they still got it wrong. The only way to test doctrine is by the Word of God for we can be sure that only it is free from the corruption of sin.

I pray God aids you in your study of the scriptures

[yawn]

(Original post by gltw)

I pray God aids you in your study of the scriptures

We have many areas of disagreement, my friend...due to the Reformation principally. However, we also have many areas of agreement which unite us and give me great hope for the future reunification of Christianity, as desired by Christ.

I also pray that the Holy Spirit guides you too to the Truth contained within Scripture as it's not a given for personal interpretation.

God bless.