Italy's 'Bleeding Thorn' Marks the Coincidence of Good Friday, Annunciation

Catholic News Agency ^ | 3/25/16

[marshmallow]

Andria, Italy, Mar 25, 2016 / 06:38 pm (CNA).- A single thorn held to have been taken from Christ's crown of thorns that traditionally 'bleeds' each time that Good Friday falls on March 25, has done so again this year.

Bishop Raffaele Calabro, Bishop Emeritus of Andria in Italy's Apulia region, confirmed today that the thorn has bled.

"The miracle has started, the wonder is underway," Bishop Calabro stated.

The thorn has been kept in a reliquary in Andria's cathedral since 1308.

A commission who observed the miracle confirmed the formation of three spherical formations or "gems" on the thorn and that "on the base of the thorn is the residue of the preceding miracle of 2005, renewing."

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are very much mistaken. You continually conflate legitimate acts of respect (veneration) with prohibited acts of idolatry.

I am sorry to say this, but your arguments, no matter how lengthy, all fail to "connect" because you do not make this very basic, all-important distinction.

The most important point, is that all legitimate veneration is directed ultimately to GOD, who alone is Holy. Anything called Holy (Holy Bible, Holy Cross, Holy Gospel, Holy Land) is called so ---- and is venerated --- only because of its association with GOD. Their holiness is secondary and derivative. HIS holiness is primary, unique, sui generis. I think we both see that.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You are very much mistaken. You continually conflate legitimate acts of respect (veneration) with prohibited acts of idolatry. I am sorry to say this, but your arguments, no matter how lengthy, all fail to "connect" because you do not make this very basic, all-important distinction.

We will have to disagree. First, it should be obvious that respect is different than veneration. It also grieves my heart when I see (protestants) who substitute the Bible for the God who wrote the Bible. That too, falls short of what God wants. It is equally true that many traditionalists substitute cherished traditions (they often grew up with), for worship of Him alone.

Biblical history shows humans regularly move from legitimate worship to idolatry. It is the fallen human condition of the heart.

The burning of incense to the bronze snake was condemned by God and the snake destroyed - despite being ordered into creation by God. Under your argument, it should have been venerated because it was associated with God. It was destroyed because it was venerated instead of God. It became idolatry and was judged. There was no legitimate veneration of the bronze serpent.

This despite the fact is was created under the most significant leader of Israel - Moses, "giver of the law."

Second, your argument about the Ark of the Covenant assumes people venerated the Ark. They did not. Everything they did was commanded by God. They did not bow down and venerate the staff of Aaron. They bowed down to a Holy God who provided a way to forgive their sins - despite their rebellion. Your argument also misses that they were being obedient to a command from God - not the desire of the fallen heart to gather things up and fall before them - like bones, thorns, mother's milk and other silly relics.

As such, the two arguments you put forward - items in the Ark and cloths used to heal - had nothing to do with veneration.

You cannot support your truth claim with arguments from Scripture that have nothing to do with your claim. This mixes apples and oranges and contains the implicit assumption that they are identical, so the former justifies the latter. They are not identical and because of this, the former never justifies the latter.

Their holiness is secondary and derivative. HIS holiness is primary, unique, sui generis. I think we both see that.

Their holiness (being set apart) is never a reason to venerate them. We do not bow before them. We do not burn incense to them (as Israel did to the snake), we do not melt down precious metals and create statues to bow down to. God alone is worthy of worship.

The line between "veneration" and worship is one of the shortest lines. This is why God repeatedly and severely condemns crossing that line. He doesn't just condemn heart worship that is unseen to the human eye. He condemns body position - bowing, and acts of worship - burning incense. He condemns images, statues, sacred stones, etc. And tellingly, He condemns even the prostration and incense before the bronze snake He Himself ordered into existence.

In all the history of mankind, after the Garden of Eden and the Fall, people fall into idolatry as a matter of course - even with the things God has either commanded or created. This is why the warnings are so strong:

"Little children, keep yourselves from idolatry."

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Ex 20:5

[note: neither bow down nor worship - both included]

Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Ex 23:24

"'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. Lev 26:1

"I will cut off your carved images And your sacred pillars from among you, So that you will no longer bow down To the work of your hands. Micah 5:13

You have an argument that you have not provided Biblical support for. I am listing many verses (out of a greater universe of similar verses in Scripture) that prohibit bowing to created things. The bronze snake is the most telling. It was ordered into creation by God. It performed a function of healing ordered and empowered by God. The people burned incense to it. God understood their hearts - that this was an act of worship to a good thing made into an idol - taking the place of God Himself.

Here is a similar modern day example from a church:

Cardinal Bretone (I've seen him identified as) offering incense to the blood of John Paul II.

Always wrong. These acts fail to go directly to God and are as old as the Fall and expulsion from the Garden and are idolatry - substituting a created thing for the One True God, who is a jealous God. As such, they are not Christian. They are pagan worship.

There are no examples of Apostles offering incense to relics, departed saints, etc. You won't find it in the inspired NT Scriptures. You won't find it in Christian art before 100ad. You won't find it as a Christian practice, written about anywhere before 100ad - Christian or secular.

You will find it in pagan history - over the milennia - in their art, writings, etc.

And of course, you will find it condemned by God in Scripture in both Testaments.

[Mrs. Don-o]

By the definition you yourself posted, "veneration" means also to revere. Reference to more detailed dictionaries will show that the meaning of "veneration" is not a single point, but a semantic field --- most words, by the way, cover extensive semantic fields, i.e. they have more than one definition ---- and the meaning is determined by the context and the intent of the speaker.

Even the use of incense is not, per se, an act of adoration, but of (in the broader sense) veneration. In the majority of Christian congregations both now and through the last 20 centuries, incense has been used to signify the setting apart of people, places, and objects associated with the worship of God.

Just over this weekend, at the Easter Vigil, literally hundreds of millions of Christians saw incense wafted upon altars, Gospel books, lectionaries, vestments, all the clergy on the altar, and the entire congregation. It does not mean we worship or idolize this book, this table, this article of clothing: it means we dedicate them to God.

See tagline, if you please.

It would be most reasonable for you accept our own explanation of our own actions, and not to impose your own. You have no call to appoint yourself the arbiter of things which you don't actually understand. We, and not you, are the proper interpreters of what we think, say, and mean.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"Just over this weekend, at the Easter Vigil, literally hundreds of millions of Christians saw incense wafted upon altars, Gospel books, lectionaries, vestments, all the clergy on the altar, and the entire congregation. It does not mean we worship or idolize this book, this table, this article of clothing: it means we dedicate them to God."

It very well may mean this. It would be most reasonable for you accept our own explanation of our own actions, and not to impose your own. You have no call to appoint yourself the arbiter of things which you don't actually understand. We, and not you, are the proper interpreters of what we think, say, and mean.

Reasonableness is nice, but Christianity is based on revealed truth.. Only God and what He has said through His Word is the arbiter of what is pleasing to Him and what defines worship or idolatry. We are called to judge rightly and righteously.

Paganism and its practices were rejected and approved by God throughout Scripture and never approved Scripture.

Your claim has devolved into reasonableness instead of supporting it with truth. This is the bronze serpent standard.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your opinion is that bowing, incense, veneration of holy objects, places, etc. is idolatry or paganism. Actually, all these things are solidly Biblical practices--- as long as they do not convey adoration of a false god, but rather, a secondary respect for a holy or honorable person (or place or thing), within a primary worship for the True and Only God of Israel.

It all sdepends on intent. If I say your baby girl is adorable, it does not mean I worship her as a goddess. If I say I venerate the memory of our WWII dead, it does not mean that I think our soildiers are equal to the Almighty.

It is imjpossible to "inadvertently" adore someone or something in an idolatrous way. It is always the deliberate intent which governs the meaning of the act.

I've already referenced the fact that Ark was incensed, anointed with oil, and so forth (gestures of veneraton.) Here’s where the confusion comes in. What’s forbidden is bowing or incensing or anointing in adoration of an object; not bowing etc. as a sign of honor or respect. Can I show that Biblically? Absolutely. It permeates Old Testament culture.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Sorry Mrs d,

What occurred with the Ark was commanded. It is not an example that applies to idols.

Bowing in adoration of idols, as well as other practices is wrong, but happens.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Just to illustraste the range of legitimate Biblical significance of bowing (which is an act of veneration), I looked up “kneel(ing)” and “bow(ing)” in the good old BibleGateway Keyword Search, and found so many references it would be exhausting to list them all.

Genesis 23:7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of that land

Genesis 33:3-7 Jacob bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother Esau

maidservants and their children bow down to Esau

Leah and her children bow down

Joseph and Rachel bow. Etc. etc!

Genesis 37 Joseph’s dreams: his brothers’ sheaves of corn -— and then the sun and moon and eleven stars —— bow down to him. Later his brothers actually do bow down to him with their faces to the ground

Genesis 48:11 Joseph bows to Jacob “with his face to the earth.”

1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba bows low (face to the ground) and kneels before the aged king David

2 Kings 1:13 the captain kneels before the prophet Elijah, and “prays” (prays!!)—begs-— him to spare his life and the life of his 50 men

Moses bows down to father-in-law; Ruth bows down to Boaz;

David prostrates before Jonathan;

David prostrates to Saul;

Abigail prostrates to David;

Saul prostrates to Samuel;

Nathan prostrates to David;

Obadiah bows to the ground before Elijah;

the prophets in Jericho bow before Elisha;

the “whole assembly” bows low and prostrates before David;

David bows to the Temple;

David prostrates to Jerusalem;

the sons of the oppressors will bow to Zion.

OK, pretty obviously the patriarchs, prophets, and kings knew about the commandment not to bow down and worship anything or anybody but God. But here they are bowing, kneeling, and prostrating, to persons, places, and things, and God is not offended. Why?

Because the commandment clearly forbids bowing and adoring a creature as the Creator; it does not forbid kneeling or bowing (to king, prophet, father, husband or brother) as a form of honor.

The commandment does not prohibit kneeling or bowing to give honor. It prohibits adoration toward anyone but Almighty God.

Now here’s an interesting episode:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Here’s the King bowing to his mother. Does that mean she’s equal to God? No. It doesn’t even mean she’s equal to the King. It means he’s pleased to honor her because of her royal dignity, her relationship as Queen Mother.

As our mindset gets further and further from traditional custom and culture, it gets harder and harder to grasp what was once the universal language of physical gesture (he salute, the tip of the hat, the bow, the genuflection, the handclasp, the curtsey, the kiss) and put each expression in its proper perspective.

A rich cultural 'vocabulary' of Biblical honor and veneration is something to ponder and appreciate. As I live, I appreciate it more and more.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OF COURSE THE VENERATION SHOWN TO THE ARK IS NOT AN EXAMPLE THAT APPLIES TO IDOLS! THAT IS MY POINT!!

[Terry L Smith]

Dear Ann,

I suggest you look up the Spanish Inquisition.

Isuggest you look up the German church ‘hexen’ records.

And for something a little
more close to home, look up
the Connecticut witch trials of 1640, just 20 years after
Plymouth Rock.

[Terry L Smith]

Dear mrs don-o,

The miracles at length in the legends are all catalogued and cross referenced in any printed version of Strong’s Concordances, in any translatable language, for one
to read.

The ‘Elijah Wonderments’ are of the severity necessary, in
today’s world.

[Terry L Smith]

Dear mrs don-,

re witches do not exist.

It seems here is the argument of the centuries ...

A church founded on a figure that proclaimed to fulfill ‘the law’, and not to do away
with it, ignores a commandment
in Leviticus, i.e. ‘suffer not
a witch to live’, and says that, although it is written
as existing, it does not exist.

[Ann Archy]

I suggest you do the same.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The word in Hebrew was not "witches" of course; what translated that way in English, was denoted by several different Hebrew words with different meanings.

One of the oldest prohibited practices was claiming to conjure up the dead. The spirit of the dead was called "ob," and the adept was a woman called a "mistress of an ob" ("ba'alat ob"). Some say they were ventriloquists, for Isaiah describes them as those that "chirp and mutter" ---probably from the necessity of feigning a disguised vocal intonation, speaking in a distorted voice as if from the ground.

The texts suggest not that these women could conjure the dead, but that they were frauds. Being prosecuted as a fraud is a whole 'nother thing from being prosecuted as one who was actually mistress of the dead.

Another group translated as "witches" in English, were the "mekashshefim". The root word "kashaf" means "to use magical appliances, or drugs". The Septuagint refers to this practice in Greek as "pharmakeia" and means dealing in drugs, often for evil purposes: to cause infertility or miscarriage, or for the poisoning of an enemy, i.e. murder. In the oldest code capital punishment is ordained for this class of witches or sorcerers (comp. Ex. xxii. 18).

Once again, the supposition is not that the sorcerer is dealing with actual occult entities, but that he or she is an evildoer, e.g. an abortionist or poisoner.

Deut.18:10-11 contains a formal list of all the important kinds of witchcraft or divination known at the time. The author of Deut. banished them from the realm of legitimate practise because they diverted people from ethical monotheism, and suggested they could prosper by the manipulation of unseen entities, rather than by upright living according to the just and ethical Law of God.

Some of these are in the list next to making one's son or daughter "pass through the fire." This was a part of Moloch worship, and was probably a means of obtaining an oracle: hence it was classed with witchcraft.

It was, of course, child-murder.

This is where people get confused, because the meaning of "witch," as well the translation of Hebrew and Greek terms, has shifted over the centuries.

The Church, of course, would never say that frauds and poisoners and child-killers do not exist. It would say that these are crimes and deserve to be prosecuted as such; whereas "witches" in the sense of "those who are in contact with occult powers via conjuring" do not exist, because these alleged occult powers do not exist.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"OF COURSE THE VENERATION SHOWN TO THE ARK IS NOT AN EXAMPLE THAT APPLIES TO IDOLS! "

1. The Ark was not venerated. God commanded Jews to do what they did. Jews worshiped God Himself, Whose presence was in the Ark.
2. This example cannot be used for books, statues, artwork, bones, thorns, mother's milk, departed saints, etc. - which are all made into idols. None of those things are commanded.
3. The best Biblical example for your assorted objec THAT IS MY POINT!!

I understand your claim and your argument. I believe it is unBiblical.

[daniel1212]

You are very much mistaken. You continually conflate legitimate acts of respect (veneration) with prohibited acts of idolatry. I am sorry to say this, but your arguments, no matter how lengthy, all fail to "connect" because you do not make this very basic, all-important distinction.

Butting in here, but the distinction is artificial when claiming Cath veneration of Mary etc, excludes worship, as words that can mean veneration and also can denote worship in describing activity, and it is RCs who fail to demonstrate that what they do is consistent with their claimed "very basic, all-important distinction."

As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven.

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

While I see that the Holy Spirit can use words that are distinctive of the activity of worship (Heb.: Todah=thanksgiving to God; Zamar=praise of God; GK: Proskuneō = worship, as to prostrate; latreia=service of God) as well as others that are not exclusively used for such toward God/Christ, yet worship is defined by what it describes. Thus souls can be charged with idolatry or as being idolators without being described as engaging in latreia or OT equivalents, but due to their activity. Such as in praying to an invisible entity with praise and adulation, imploring such for heavenly aid (sometimes including bowing down to a statute of it), and or making offerings to these supernatural beings (including wholly dedicating themselves to them), and or ascribing to such attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture.

Yet somehow RCs do all such and yet imagine that it would be understood as worship in Scripture, and argue that their activity which is identical with what only God is given in Scripture is actually merely being (in Latin) "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (Gk. = latreia) in Scripture. However, latria actually is only used for service of God in the NT, (Jn. 16:2, Rom. 9:4, Heb. 9:1; 9:6) and which service many Catholics also offer to Mary as a supernatural being in the spiritual realm, offering themselves wholly to her, and who can be corporately communicated to mentally or hear from Heaven.

Yet the Holy Spirit presents God as the only supernatural being in Heaven that offerings and total dedicatory service is made to by believers, and the only such being whom believers on earth pray to. And who can hear from Heaven those on earth who communicate mentally or otherwise. I see communication btwn created beings only taking place with both somehow being in the same realm, and with no intercession to God being requested.

While latreia is only used of worship of God, other words are used for worship, but following the Cath rationale pagans could claim that were not worshiping their false gods.

Sebomai: to revere, to worship. (Thayer)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. (Acts 18:13)

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. (Acts 16:14)

And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. (Acts 18:7)

So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19:27)

You can no more say Caths are not worshipping the (great goddess) Mary of Catholicism etc. by calling their activity (as described below) "veneration" than you can say the pagans were giving mere veneration to their great goddess.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You can no more say Caths are not worshipping the (great goddess) Mary of Catholicism etc. by calling their activity (as described below) "veneration" than you can say the pagans were giving mere veneration to their great goddess."

It seems that charge could be leveled at Catholics only if you thought that someone can adore someone else "inadvertently", that is, one could "accidentally" adore some person or entity, while actually intending not to.

This makes no sense. Adoration is a conscious and deliberate act. If I am not intending to adore, I am not adoring. There's no way around that.

Another point: this whole thing stems from a failure to make distinctions between the various degrees of honor and reverence on the one hand, and adoration on the other. And that, I think, stems from a withered, impoverished idea of what honor, reverence, respect, and veneration are, a sad lack of that whole realm of the proper "intermediate honor" which simply permeates the Bible.

That, in turn, is related to what's called the logical fallacy of the "excluded middle" or "undistributed middle" (you can Google that.) It's the retention, on the honor scale, of A and Z, and the elimination of everything between the two.

It's even worse than that, because Z in this schema, which would be "adoration of God," actually is not "Z" at all, but is off this scale entirely, since God's infinite and adorable Glory infinitely exceeds any human alphabet.

[daniel1212]

Adoration is a conscious and deliberate act. If I am not intending to adore, I am not adoring. There's no way around that.

That is true, and according to that criteria, every pagan who engages in the kind of activity toward their god as Caths do toward Mary, and such as idolators in Scripture engaged in, could also claim that they are not intending to adore, and which illustrates is the fallacy of requiring mind reading in order to define worship. Which is not what Scripture does, nor does it define worship as only being such if it is called latreia. Otherwise no idolatry is described in the NT.

Another point: this whole thing stems from a failure to make distinctions between the various degrees of honor and reverence on the one hand, and adoration on the other. And that, I think, stems from a withered, impoverished idea of what honor, reverence, respect, and veneration are, a sad lack of that whole realm of the proper "intermediate honor" which simply permeates the Bible.

No, it is not a failure to make distinctions but that of making distinctions based upon mind reading or only by the use of one word, which simply is not Scriptural. Instead the Scriptures describes idolaters, including as engaging in activities which are never done toward created beings, such as i described. By defining worship under this Catholic means, then burning incense to the invisible Queen of Heaven cannot surely be said to be worship, (Jer. 44:15-19) nor making offerings to unseen entities to whom uniquely Divine powers are ascribed, (1Ki. 18:21-25) nor bowing down to statues in faith that the entity they represent will deliver them.

That, in turn, is related to what's called the logical fallacy of the "excluded middle" or "undistributed middle"

Actually, it is your obscure, ambiguous definition of worship that is excluded as defining worship. Why not stop such recourse and just admit that NOWHERE in Scripture but among pagans do we see anything close to kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings and supplication to unseen entities in the heavens (unless it is the Lord), and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven. Only believes do such (except the statue part) and toward the Lord.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“NOWHERE in Scripture but among pagans do we see anything close to kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings and supplication to unseen entities in the heavens (unless it is the Lord), and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven. Only believes do such (except the statue part) and toward the Lord.”

This presupposes that someone holds the Scripture in higher regard than cherished pagan practices. Moreover, when you approach the scriptures with the sole desire to support a pagan practice that is already believed, you enthrone eisogesis as a hermeneutical principle.

If you begin with the authority of God’s Word, you cannot support syncretic paganism.

So here we are on this thread.

[daniel1212]

“NOWHERE in Scripture but among pagans do we see anything close to kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings and supplication to unseen entities in the heavens (unless it is the Lord), and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven. Only believes do such (except the statue part) and toward the Lord.”

Correction: the last sentence of the paragraph that should be, Only believers validly engage in such (except the statue part) as toward the Lord.”

This presupposes that someone holds the Scripture in higher regard than cherished pagan practices.Moreover, when you approach the scriptures with the sole desire to support a pagan practice that is already believed, you enthrone eisogesis as a hermeneutical principle.

Obviously Scripture is treated as an abused servant that is compelled to support Rome, or at least to claim that it does not contradict her. The latter is much relied on, and under which hermeneutic they could even claim that Mary parted the Red Sea and feed 10,000 souls potato chips.

Here, faced with activity of worship that, outside of being toward the Lord, is utterly foreign to Scripture except in the realm of paganism, and thus Caths resort to appealing to the unseen motive of the heart. What is next?

[Iscool]

Bishop Calabro thanked God “for what he is doing, as the miracle is a gift from the love of God and is a sign of his love for this community.”

How do you know??? How do you know it's not a sign of contempt for a religion that would venerate an object that was the cause of so much pain and suffering???