Posted on 04/07/2019 4:09:54 AM PDT by buffyt
Edited on 04/07/2019 8:57:31 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
They are two different words. I found this interesting.
venerate
1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual act of devotion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venerate
worship
1: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship
Synonyms of venerate
adore, deify, glorify, revere,reverence, worship
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/venerate
Worth repeating
Synonyms of venerate
adore, deify, glorify, revere,reverence, worship
Not only, but "by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomons porch..." (Acts 5:12) "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." (Acts 5:15)
That God sanctifies both things and people by their direct (Leviticus 6:27) connection to that which is holy, and can - not necessarily will - do miracles, including by direct connection to that which is holy, is not to be disputed.
First we have the principle of sanctification by direct connection:
Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. (Leviticus 6:27)
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)
Then we have miracles during one period by connection with such:
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13:21)
The difference is that in Biblical cases of connection miracles this was not a hit or miss reality by connection to a perpetually preserved relic, but were certain miracles that always occurred during a certain period, and are never shown to be a case of perpetually preserved objects of devotion connection to which might result in a miracle, and NEVER by praying before relics from people to created beings in Heaven.
People praying for hundreds of years before "preserved" (which usually or always involves some craft ) relics is not what Acts 19:11-12 describes or teaches.
And we can see why instruments of healing relics would not be perpetually preserved as miraculous objects of devotion:
And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house. (Judges 8:27)
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Numbers 21:9)
And he [Hezekiah] did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it : and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:3-4)
So you yourself oppose those who support Francis yet condemn those who oppose your church. And you do not know where it comes from, though both as a result of being contrary to historical belief.
For distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Moreover, the RCC simply does not support rejecting a validly elected pope as being so, and rather than the laity being the judge of what constitutes valid papal teaching, popes from another era taught such commands,
''the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Can you explain this passage to me? God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. Acts 19:11-12.
1) God did extraordinary miracles.............. It was not Paul, it was not the handkerchief and aprons.
No bias there. Did you ever the reproofs of Catholics that you find so objectionable as a RC are usually a result of the incessant provocative posting of articles by RCs on a elitist serf-proclaimed "one true church" which historically damned all without her such as me and presently asserts that Prot churches are not worthy of the proper name "church?"
If Mormons were allowed to that here, do to not think "anti-Mormonic" reproof would be in order?
I worship my Wifes 40 year old *ss.
Good policy. I do the same. My wifes ass, not yours.
Best,
L
Which is consistent with the liberal nature of states wherever Catholicism overall predominates.
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (Revelation 5:11-13)
Not worshipped. Poor headline. Venerated is a better word.
Stupid journalists!
Splitting hairs.......But hardly matters what you call it, it’s still abusing dead human body parts regardless of the display and worship of these by some more than others. It’s still a ‘sick’ practice.
Its the Greek that matters, and those who play word games by denying worship based one two different words should see http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Words_used_for_worship.html
Huh? The Protestant north won the war.
They're used as a cash cow....people show up to view these dead objects as if they
have mystical power, or just for the side show. I couldn't get over some people
actually “kiss” these decaying objects or the vials of their blood!
In other words, they run screaming from the cathedrals to the nearest Mickey Ds. Theres a good one on the Champs Elysee, btw.
In other words, you saint was wrong to b repelled by these fantastic monsters.
From Websters dictionary:
Synonyms of venerate
adore, deify, glorify, revere,reverence, worship
Who is stupid now?
While Catholics tend to do it, marginalizing the bulk of the NT in subscribing to the "red-letter" hermeneutic is wrong just as ignoring the OT in teaching the New Covenant.
It is the NT that is interpretive of the OT, and Acts - Rev. that is interpretive of the gospels, and which reveals how the NT church understood both.
Yet the more a believer reads all of Scripture with that interpretive hermeneutic then the more they can better understand and appreciate both.
significance more than what a scientist might have pickled on his shelf for viewing
or a carnival side show as was once done?
.... In this case we're talking about a dried up decaying internal heart of a persons dead body...
Further,(as shown) these people not only are 'bowing down before it' but they've been provided
with a kneeling bench to do so....looks like worship to any sensible person watching that dislayed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.