Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: the_conscience

Sure.

After Vatican II, there were sweeping changes to the appearance of many things about the church buildings.

I’ve referred to Protestant prayer barns inasmuch as they are simply plainer and set up more like a stage and audience rather than having an altar.

They started removing the tabernacle from front and center, sometimes moving it out of sight. They pulled the altars back and went from anonymous priest facing with the people to a Protestant style facing the people.

The church nearest to us doesn’t have kneelers; it only recently put a large crucifix over the altar.

A single holy water font big enough to float a boat in.

Yecch.


942 posted on 02/01/2008 11:40:20 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies ]


To: MarkBsnr; the_conscience; blue-duncan; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; Lord_Calvinus; Uncle Chip; ...
I've referred to Protestant prayer barns inasmuch as they are simply plainer and set up more like a stage and audience rather than having an altar.

That is because there is no "altar" in most Protestant churches. There is no need to sacrifice Christ again. His one-time perfect sacrifice was offered to and accepted by God at Calvary, per Hebrews.

Protestant churches have pulpits facing the congregation rather than altars facing away from the congregation. That's because church is where the word of God is to be preached.

And as for being austere, give me Cromwell's violent sweeping away of the altar's pagan accoutrement's any day. In church our minds and hearts are to be on His word and His Holy Spirit within us, not on the smells and bells and pretty pictures of man-made baubbles which crack under pressure and tarnish in the light of the Son.

946 posted on 02/01/2008 11:59:56 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 942 | View Replies ]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg

Thanks for the insight. I figured it was along those lines.

This reminds me of the sin of the calf in Exodus 32. The conventional opinion among Bible scholars for many years was that the calf was another god that the Isrealites decided to worship when they thought Moses would not return. That opinion among Bible scholars is now changing and the text would seem to agree. The prevailing opinion now is that the calf was meant as a throne to Yahweh, replacing the ark of the covenant, since they thought they had lost their mediator, Moses. If this be the case then the sin of the calf is not a First commandment violation but rather a Second commandment violation.

I’m struck by the similtude of the sin of the calf and the temples of Rome. Like the Israelites, the Romanists set up their graven images and altars performing their ritualistic dances while the mediator, Christ, is in conference with Yahweh.

Even sadder, when reform is enacted to put away the graven images the people hearts remain cold to repentance and decry the loss of their graven images.


1,017 posted on 02/01/2008 10:15:01 PM PST by the_conscience (McCain/Thompson 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 942 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson