The Church viewed Cassian's teachings as heretical. Shouldn't that be sufficient?
You have no proof nor do you have sufficient evidence.
What evidence do I need? I'm not the one who sits in judgment. I'm merely stating venerating statues made with hands is idolatry. Let him who have ears hear.
We can and we do.
So, what is the meaning of venerate?
Can we pull together a coherant post please?
Sometimes I think people can grasp certain concepts. The Orthodox view was built on a synergistic model that believed in man's will to change his life. Their touted saint is none other than Saint Cassian who had a great influence on the Orthodox view. On the other side was the Latin who branded (at least initially) Cassian as a heretic, favoring Augustine's view of salvation as a gift from God. After all, it does state that in scripture although few actually believe that it is a GIFT; instead thinking they did something (had faith, was baptized, etc.). Few look upon the church/Church as the "chosen" nation of God. Instead most veiw it as the "chosing" nation of God.
***The Church viewed Cassian’s teachings as heretical. Shouldn’t that be sufficient?***
Let’s see what New Advent says:
The three opposing views have been summed up briefly as follows: St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick. The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529.
The fact that semipelagianism was condemned is the entire basis of everything that you consider heretical or not? Do you really mean to say that?
***What evidence do I need? I’m not the one who sits in judgment. I’m merely stating venerating statues made with hands is idolatry. Let him who have ears hear.***
You are judging. Let him who has brains think.
New Advent is helpful:
Two questions that obviously must be kept apart are those of the use of sacred images and of the reverence paid to them. That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. Since their discovery in the sixteenth century — on 31 May, 1578, an accident revealed part of the catacomb in the Via Salaria — and the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas.
The Christian sarcophagi were ornamented with indifferent or symbolic designs — palms, peacocks, vines, with the chi-rho monogram (long before Constantine), with bas-reliefs of Christ as the Good Shepherd, or seated between figures of saints, and sometimes, as in the famous one of Julius Bassus with elaborate scenes from the New Testament. And the catacombs were covered with paintings. There are other decorations such as garlands, ribands, stars landscapes, vines-no doubt in many cases having a symbolic meaning. ***
I thought that you guys trumpeted loudly and repeatedly that you were the most akin to the early Church. Why do you not practice what the early Church practiced? I notice that you also don’t believe in transubstantiation. Another significant departure from Christian beliefs. With the difference between yourselves and the Church, I think that the term Christian applied to the Reformers is very weakly linked and getting weaker with every new development in theology.
***So, what is the meaning of venerate?***
St. Thomas declares what idolatry is in the “Summa Theologica”, II-II:94, and explains the use of images in the Catholic Church (II-II:94:2, ad 1Um). He distinguishes between latria and dulia (II-II:103). The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:
[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Ps. cxxxiv, 15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).
***The Orthodox view was built on a synergistic model that believed in man’s will to change his life. Their touted saint is none other than Saint Cassian who had a great influence on the Orthodox view. On the other side was the Latin who branded (at least initially) Cassian as a heretic, favoring Augustine’s view of salvation as a gift from God. After all, it does state that in scripture although few actually believe that it is a GIFT; instead thinking they did something (had faith, was baptized, etc.). Few look upon the church/Church as the “chosen” nation of God. Instead most veiw it as the “chosing” nation of God.***
I guess that you’ve hung out with a different crowd than I have. All Catholics that I know or know of consider the Grace of God to be the foundation of one’s salvation. It is in the Catechism; it is in the Gospel and it is what we believe.