Pope wants crucifix at the centre of ALL westward-facing altars during Mass

Telegraph ^ | January 10, 2010 | Damian Thompson

[nanetteclaret]

That is not the most important verse and it is not merely a spiritual rememberance. That is your own interpretation. Jesus said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. If it was merely a spiritual rememberance, Jesus would have called the disciples back who left Him when He said that we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood.” “The flesh profiteth nothing” refers to something else, but not to His Body and Blood. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have told us so many times that we needed to do it, and that we would have no life unless we did. You are “taking away” words of Scripture when you deny what Jesus clearly said and apply some of His words wrongly to other of His words. And besides, why would St. Paul have clearly said that we eat and drink damnation to our souls when we do not discern the Body and Blood of the Lord in Holy Communion? “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” I Cor. 11:27-29 So, not only do you deny the clear meaning of Jesus’ words, you deny St. Paul’s teaching, too?

[Zionist Conspirator]

The ancient chr*stians understood this as meaning that the Jewish Law was non-salvific, but they replaced the Jewish Law with their own laws, and these were understood to be salvific. True, this was inconsistent and hypocritical, and Luther and Calvin recognized this, which is why they took the "anti-works" doctrine of Paul to its logical conclusion (or, more correctly, closer to its logical conclusion than the ancient chr*stians ever took it). I appreciate the consistency of Fundamentalist Protestants and contrast this with the hypocrisy of churches who loudly condemn Torah observance while defending rosary beads, masses, fasts, feast days, etc. But this doesn't change the fact that the hypocritical view of the ancient churches is the historical view while the more consistent antinomianism of the Protestants is ahistorical.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And to be clear, we are ALL brothers in Him. All of my posts are from that perspective. From what I’ve read in previous posts, I get the impression this reflects your view as well.

Thank you, and for your humility as well (again, please forgive my earlier rant in which I accused you of pridefulness). The Internet does tend to make bullies of us all.

As for my views, I am a Noachide, though I don't want to argue about it right now.

[RobRoy]

>>...though I don’t want to argue about it right now.<<

That is a sentiment I FULLY understand. ;)

[editor-surveyor]

Justification and salvation are the same thing.

This was clearly understood by the early church, but it got twisted a few centuries later when the Roman Catholic Church was created by men, and pagan works based salvation was grafted onto their version of ‘Christianity.’

Actually, justification by faith was understood by Abraham, and even earlier by Noah, and Enoch. The birth of Yeshua was the fulfillment of the ancient promises; no more, no less. He is the lamb.

[Zionist Conspirator]

This was clearly understood by the early church, but it got twisted a few centuries later when the Roman Catholic Church was created by men, and pagan works based salvation was grafted onto their version of ‘Christianity.’

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong. You apparently didn't read my original post on the subject very carefully.

"Works salvation" is not only a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but of all the ancient churches founded by the apostles, including those that were never at any time under Constantine (the Armenian, Nestorian, Ethiopian, Indian, etc.). The Indian chr*stians had been out of contact with the great outside world for centuries and centuries, and guess what? When the Portuguese discovered them they had priests, sacraments, holidays . . . the whole schmeer. The idea that the ancient chr*stians were Protestants until Constantine invented the Roman Catholic Church out of whole cloth is a myth, pure and simple. BTW, each and every one of these ancient, non-Roman churches have sites on the Internet. Perhaps you should visit them. You might learn something.

Actually, justification by faith was understood by Abraham, and even earlier by Noah, and Enoch. The birth of Yeshua was the fulfillment of the ancient promises; no more, no less. He is the lamb.

These are all the claims of chr*stianity read into the Hebrew Bible. This is something Protestants and the ancient apostolic "works salvation" churches have in common.

[nanetteclaret]

God’s word clearly shows that Mary was NOT a sinner! The angel Gabriel told her: “chaire kecharitomene” which means “favored with grace.” St. Paul’s quote in Romans 3 is from the Psalms (Old Testament), but Holy Scripture in the New Testament clearly says that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous: “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Luke 1:6 In addition, Jesus called John the Baptist righteous: “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness” Matt. 21:32 So your argument is not valid.

In addition, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Mary bore other children besides the Lord. You will quote the words “brethren,” but as has been pointed out many, many times, the words “brethren” refer to his cousins or relatives(”James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas” Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), as can be proven by Holy Scripture:

James and Jude were the sons of Alpheus/Cleophas:
“Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;” Matt 10:2-3,
“And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,” Mark 3:18
“James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.” Luke 6:15-16
“James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James” Acts 1:13
“Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” Jude 1:1

Holy Scripture refers to their mother as “the other Mary,” to distinguish her from Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus (also mentioned are Joanna and Salome, the mother of James and John).

“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.” Matthew 27:56
“And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.” Matthew 27:61
“In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Matthew 28:1
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;” Mark 15:40
“And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.” Mark 15:47
“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” Mark 16:1
“It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.” Luke 24:10

Holy Scripture is quite clear that she is the mother of James the Less (as opposed to Salome who is the mother of Zebedee’s sons, James and John) and Holy Scripture is also quite clear that she is the sister (or relative) of Mary, the mother of Jesus:

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” John 19:25

[afraidfortherepublic]

And what about Milwaukee? The disgraced Archbishop Rembert Weakland spent millions $$$$ of diocesan money to remodal our Cathedral and replaced the crucifix with this piece of "art" hanging from the ceiling just before he resigned in disgrace. Yes, that is an abstract figure of Christ on a crucifix surrounded by a gigantic crown of thorns. You say you can't see the crucifix? Nobody else can either, but we're stuck with it and have no more money because of abuse lawsuits judgements that went against the archdioces after WEAKland left.

[editor-surveyor]

"Works salvation" is not only a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but of all the ancient churches founded by the apostles"

I gave you some of the many references that prove your statement to be absolutely false. I have to conclude that you have a desire to believe it in spite of the vast evidence against it.

Genesis 15:
1: After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2: And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3: And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Is this what you mean by "reading in?"

[editor-surveyor]

The things that you think are ‘clear’ are clearly not what you think!

All of God’s elect are “favored with grace.” That is why we’re called ‘saints’ (which means set apart from the world) in the NT.

There were many Mary (miriam), James, Jude (Judas), Simon, and John characters, since they were the popular names of the time. You do your argument no honor by making such an absurd reach to confound what the word does say.

[jagusafr]

We serve the same Lord. We were saved by the same blood. The rest is gravy. Have a blessed day.

Colonel, USAFR

[BenKenobi]

That’s not what the passage is saying.

What the passage is saying is that it was for the edification of everyone, not just the illiterate.

Your argument is copied and pasted from Gibbon. Why, if people were illiterate, were books so popular when the movable press made them more cheaper?

[nanetteclaret]

You do your argument no honor to say that Scripture does not say what it clearly does. Just because you don’t want to believe it does not mean that it isn’t true. I posted Scripture verses and you say my argument is “absurd?” That’s pretty funny coming from someone who believes that “if it isn’t in Scripture I won’t believe it.” Except when it is in Scripture, you won’t believe it, either.

[nanetteclaret]

It’s interesting you posted that quote from Genesis. Here is what James has to say about it. I guess you would argue with him, too:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
James 2:14-26

[editor-surveyor]

James is pointing out that true faith will be evidenced by works. He wasn’t the only one to say so, but his is the most emphatic exposition.

[CTrent1564]

editor-surveyor:

Idolarty?? Not at all. The criticisms levied by you along with other Protestants with respect to Icons and Sacred Images [Sacramentals] is an implicit heresy with respect to failing to completely grasp the implications of the Incarnation. The Incarnation in readers digest language is the orthodox doctrine that the eternal son of God assumed a complete human nature and was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, as Our Sunday’s Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia (p. 530) states “The union of the divine and human natures in Christ is a permanent and abiding one. In addition, a fundamental soteriological conviction is at stake in the doctrine: Whatever is not assumed is not saved. According to the scriptures, the Incarnation has the salvific purpose that embraces both the restoration of the image of God in us through the cross of Christ and the foretaste of the perfect union with God that is our destiny in Christ.”

Catholics meditate on the Incarnation constantly, as evidenced by the Annunciation being part of the Rosary and the Church requirement that the Faithful are obliged to attend the Christmas Liturgy regardless of which day it falls. More importantly, and I think this gets more into the crux of the matter, while Protestants accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, the implications for Protestants with respect to the Incarnation creates problems for their doctrines of justification. Lets take the mere fact that Christ loved our bodies (i.e. Human nature) enough to take a body himself). Since all the Creeds confess the orthodox doctrine of the “resurrection of the body” (Apostles Creed) and “We look for resurrection of the dead” (Nicene Creed), the Doctrine of the Incarnation is important and related to these statements as we will continue to have our bodies in heaven.

In rejecting icons and sacred art, etc, Protestants are implicitly embracing Gnosticism as many Protestant confessions have an anti-physical bias. Protestant doctrines about justification which say that God imputes his Grace, which amounts to a covering of the human person, is in opposition of the Catholic position with as I alluded to earlier, “God’s Grace restores us unto God’s image and is a foretaste of the perfect union with the Trinity.” The failure to contemplate the full implications of the Incarnation impacts how most Protestants view the Sacraments, as the Protestant understanding of Sacraments has the anti-physical bias which thus prevents them from understanding the orthodox understanding of the Eucharist and Baptism as they are taught in Scripture.

Icons, sacred art, sacramentals, which point to Sacraments [they are themselves not sacraments], allow us visibly to see eternal mysteries and again is rooted in Incarnational Theology. Once one understands this, one can understand why as Pope Benedict writes [Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 122-123] that the Second Council of Nicea [787 AD] and all of the following councils concerned with icons regard it as a confession of faith in the Incarnation and inconoclasm as a denial of the Incarnation, as the summation of all heries. The Incarnation means, in the first place, that the invisible God enters into the visible world, so that we, who are bound to matter, can know him…The Incarnation is aimed at man’s transformation through the Cross and to the new corporeality of the Resurrection. God seeks us where we are, not so that we stay there, but so that we may come to be where he is, so that we may get beyond ourselves. That is why to reduce the visible appearance of Christ to a “HISTORICAL JESUS” [not yelling, but for emphasis] belonging to the past misses the point of the Incarnation.

Pope Benedict continues and points out that Iconoclasm rests ultimately on a one-sided apophatic theology, which recognizes only the Wholly Other-ness of God beyond all images and words, a theology that in the final analysis regards revelation as the inadequate human reflection of what is eternally imperceptible. But if this is true, faith collapses (p. 124). In this context, Inconclasm is actually a doctrine that reflects a theology of Islam, who were the ones attacking the use of Icons back in the 8th century.

Pope Benedict makes some excellent points on page 131 where he states that the complete absence of images is incompatible with faith in the Incarnation of God who as acted in history and entered into our sensible world, so that it may become transparent to him. Images of beauty, in which the mystery of the invisible God becomes visible, are an essential part of Christian worship…..In closing, Inconoclasm is not a Christian option.

In summary, the use of Icons and Sacred Images in Christian Worship is not Idolatry, it is actually heretical and a rejection of the true meaning of Christ Incarnation, i.e. “The word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (cf. John 1:14). In Catholic Doctrine and the consistent orthodox Christian Tradition of both the West and East down through the centuries, Idolatry is the divinization of a creature in the place of God; the substitution of some one or thing for God; worshiping a creature (or even money, pleasure of power) instead of God. Thus, your attack on the Catholic Church for using icons and sacred images in Liturgy is in fact a heresy condemned back in the 8th century.

Cheers

[editor-surveyor]

It matters little how many paragraphs you type, Images and statues are Idolatry through and through.

Just as they had to be removed from the Hebrew temples and burned, all Christian churches must remove these distracting embarrassments, and make room for Christ.

Cast down the obelisks, rip out the eight path circles, and rosette windows, and replace the crucifix with a cross. Christ is arisen, and he is not worshiped with things made by hands.

[CTrent1564]

editor-surveyor:

And your views are heretical as rejected at the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD. I will stick with orthodox Christian Doctrine and and you stick with your “personal infallible theology” and your “fundamenatlist world is flat view of the Bible”, both of which don’t amount to a hill of beans and are ultimately you setting yourself up as your own Pope, Church Council, etc and is why I say the Sola of Protestantism is in reality “Sola Meo”

[editor-surveyor]

There is no pope in Jesus Christ’s church, nor any council with the authority to nullify God’s perfect word. Christ decried all these nicolaitan heresies in the letters to the churches, and it is to his church that I adhere.

[Petronski]

Images and statues are Idolatry through and through.

In your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

Good grief.