Really? Why? As a good "Bible believing" Calvinist, there should not be one word of Scripture that your unfamiliar with. That being the case, what good would it do to use what you have already rejected or misinterpreted in an attempt to help you see the errors of your ways? No good at all, at least that has been my experience.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. My side says it holds the scriptures as THE single earthly authority for Christianity. If you could "beat" me using scriptures, then regardless of whether I see the error of my ways, every reader should see the errors and you will be proved correct. You would be "beating me at my own game", so to speak. That is exactly why I sometimes quote from the Catechism. :) So, please feel free to use the scriptures in support of your arguments. There are many lurkers out there who could then consider what you are saying on a level they have more familiarity with.
FK: "... Instead, [the author] relates what he saw with his own eyes in terms of actual PRACTICE by Catholics."
No, he relates what he imagines he sees with his eyes, what he expects to see and what he wants to see. He, like not a small number of the Protestant contingent here on FR seem to have the remarkable ability to read the hearts and minds of other people as they pray. Uncanny.
Well, doesn't it sure sound exactly like the real idolatry that is described for us in the Bible? :
Deut 4:15-16 : 15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol , an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, ...
Hos 4:12 : ... They consult a wooden idol and are answered by a stick of wood. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God.
Were not the people the author observed "consulting a piece of stone"? Presumably, they could have said the same prayer anywhere, but they chose to go to a stone to say it. I understand that your position is that the prayer is really only directed to the source of the image, but why do you choose to create the image? You know well that the Bible is full of examples of people bowing down to false idols. Why does your side want to LOOK exactly as they did, even if you contend there is a difference? Isn't that a great temptation? Can you state as a fact that none of those Catholics bowing and praying before statues are violating God's commands? Of course not.
And you're right that I can't read their minds either, so it is not my point to DECLARE them guilty. However, I do criticize the practice because it can so easily LEAD to exactly what God warned us to never do in the Bible.
You little rant about the Churches teachings and the ability of the flock to adhere to those teachings is pathetic, but not unexpected from a Calvinist.
Amazing consistency isn't it, considering we have 33,000 denominations going off in a million different directions? :)
The fact that some [Catholics] fail in some way to assent or conform them selves to the teachings of the Church have no influence on the truth of those teachings any more than the thousands of murders a year committed by people who call them selves "Christian" detract from the 10 Commandments. (emphasis added)
That's why I asked you who you consider to be "the Church". From your above when you say "the Church" it is apparent that you only really mean the hierarchy. The function of the laity is simply to obey these men, whatever they say. I actually have much more respect for the Orthodox position on this, which is in effect that no teaching or holding of any hierarchy is worth anything UNLESS it is accepted in practice by the laity. Kolokotronis even gave me an example of an official holding of a Council that was nullified because the laity didn't accept it.
Anyway, the attempted tie-in is that Latins are not taught to think about or question anything from on high. Just obey. So, if they are TOLD to bow down and pray in front of statues, then they do so even if they do not really understand why. That sounds like very fertile ground for error to creep in, don't you think? As must be true statistically, the quality of teaching by the local hierarchy may vary in quality to some degree in different places around the world. I took from the author of the article that in the places he visited the quality was relatively low. Other Freepers have confirmed as much from their own experiences. Therefore, given all this, it is not an outlandish supposition that some or many of those the author observed were in fact practicing idolatry.
Thanks.
Excellent post.
And this:
However, I do criticize the practice because it can so easily LEAD to exactly what God warned us to never do in the Bible.
= = =
Except for the perversities of human nature . . . it is mystifying why anyone claiming to be a Christian would appear to tenaciously, vigorously coze up as close as possible to the very thing God forbade in the harshest of terms in Scripture
RATHER THAN
FLEEING AS FAR AWAY FROM SUCH AS POSSIBLE.
Must have something to do with the “heart being deceitfully wicked” sort of stuff.
Hos 4:12 ... "They consult a wooden idol and are answered by a stick of wood. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God."
Were not the people the author observed "consulting a piece of stone"?
Exactly correct. And yet even idolaters who pray before wooden sticks might insist the wooden stick is only representative of something else which is the same excuse the RCC gives.
When Indians bowed down to the dead head of a wild boar, they didn't just believe that dead boar had power over them, but all other boars which were represented by the one dead animal.
But the bottom line is that they were still praying to someone and something other than God, whether it was the dead boar in front of them or the living ones still roaming around the plains.
So this excuse by the RCC that they are not praying to the wood but to what the wood represents doesn't hold up.
Either way it's still idolatry. It's still prayers to an unknown god.
"They are unfaithful to their God."
I'm assuming you have a through knowledge of scripture, right? It is for you and all Protestants the sole rule of faith so it would be a given that you would have already read the Scripture I would post, correct. Since you have already created a line of belief from you reading of Scripture and of the Institutes, how would me posting averse, chapter or even a whole book change you views? It would not, has not and will not until you commit to read the Holy Writ with new eyes. Not in the piecemeal pretexting fashion we are so used to here on FR but in a coherent, cogent way that brings to life the greatest love story ever written: Gods love for man.
Well, doesn't it sure sound exactly like the real idolatry that is described for us in the Bible? :
The Duck billed Platypus has a bill, webbed feet and lays eggs, but it is not a duck. If these people actually believed that the stone answered their prayers, that would be idolatry, but with out talking to them, delving deep into their understanding of intercessory prayer and the role of the saints in heaven, then it's merely a case of projection.
You are truly gracious not to judge, but your fear of iconography is a heresy we dealt with long ago and is your own problem, not the problem of properly catechized believers. I will note, however, that proper catechesis is sorely lacking in many parts of the world, the US is no exception.
The Church is two fold. There is the body of believers holding the faith as handed to us from the institutional Church founded by Christ, which is hierarchal in design and perfect in it's teaching role as it regards the faith "who hears you, hears Me". We are free to question may things, just not reveled truth, that would be a folly of pride.