Seriously Catholics how is this not idolatry?

God doesn't really care about idolatory, that's a protestant myth

lol just post a few selfies from a sermon and god will recognize you as his flock

Im pretty sure you're trolling but still >defending idolatry this much

Protestant definition of idolatry isn't even Biblical.

1. It has to be directed towards false gods
2. the statues themselves are literally considered gods are worshipped as such
3. sacrifices are conducted in their honor; in sacred scripture, this could be even human sacrifice

Catholics worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The statues are representations.
Catholics re-present Christ's Passion, which serves as the altar sacrifice of thanksgiving for eternity

In all seriousness there isn't any problem if the end goal is the glorification of God, which it is. God picked Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Honoring her is honoring Gods will.

I guess its ok for me to murder then if tue end goal is to glorify God

Murder is a sin. Venerating Mary for the glory of God is not.

Idolatry is a sin though which you just defended

This is correct. I think the misunderstanding generally comes from Protestants having IQs below 90 and being unable to understand the difference between a physical statue and what the statue represents. When they see people praying in front of one they can't really separate the two so they think people are literally praying to the statue itself and not to the person who it represents.

American Protestants have less understanding of Christian doctrine than Ethiopians, sad but true.

Venerating Mary is not idolatry. Never has been. Never will be. See

This.
We don't worship the statues themselves, we venerate/worship what they represent.
Not the same thing at all.

...

DESTROY ALL ICONS!
The word stands on its own.

Attached: Clasm_Chludov_detail_9th_century.jpg (765x636, 374.25K)

speaking of idolatry

Hmmmmmmm…really makes you think.

...

Greek gods are false gods. Praying to false gods or false representations of God is idolatry. Praying in front of a statue to Jesus is not idolatry because you're praying to Jesus in Heaven, not the statue, the statue is simply a representation that allows you to focus your mind towards God.

God wants to be glorified on Earth. He wants to be among us. There is a reason Solomon built an enormous temple with gold and precious jewels. Creating art and works that glorify God in his greatness is something commendable. Sitting in a blank, sterile Protestant Church listening how "God hates fags!" for the thousandth time and how the Bible is equal to God is an affront to God. G

And? St. Paul admonished them, and said He would provide them with the identity of the "unknown God".

Now, we know this one true God, and we worship Him.

So if my depiction of Jesus doesn't look like a historical Greek Orthodox or Catholic one its a false representation? What eye color, hair color, skin color did Jesus have, what of Mary, or God himself? I see nothing in scripture saying Jesus must look a certain way or that God wants idols made, much more the opposite.

Protestants teaching and working from the word only seems a much more in tune act of devotion then enacting some ritual in front of idols, decorating idols, carrying around idols and sculpting more idols.

The devil doesn't care what the idols of man look like, he just wants man to praise them instead of God. Man need not even have to make them himself, a tree, mountain or volcano can even be considered an idol, this is how idolatry even started and has persisted for so long.

Was about to post "does anyone around here knows exactly what 'idolatry' means anymore?" Thank goodness someone still has some sense.

Then you don't know much of anything about the Word of God. God never dismissed the Temple, He raised it up again, He never dismissed the tabernacle, He spread it all around the world.

When men would offer up their own children to false and fake gods; God offered up His own Son that we all would be saved.

We continue the priestly tradition, we honor and praise God the way He left us with, unto the end of the world. The way Protestants worship, is throw up some man on a stage and have him ramble for an hour or so. How you see this as a true form of worship is a mystery, because it surely not in the scriptures or in the Apostolic teaching.

Idolatry etymologically denotes
Divine worship
given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true

No Catholic gives divine worship to anything but God.

Ten hail Marys and your way to redemption

Many of them do, but against Catholic doctrine.

Iconoclasts are disgusting materialists.

It's in the Bible.

"Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."

"All generations shall henceforth call me blessed."

Jesus performed an honor unto Mary by being incarnated through her. Putting a few flowers onto a statue of Mary is nothing compared to the honor that Jesus already did for her. There's nothing wrong with paying her some honor. We are like the fallen lady who anoints Christ's feet with expensive oils.

1. You are glorifying Mary when you make statues of her. That glory and veneration should only go to God. Mary is not sinless.

2. You are committing idolatry and glorifying Mary when you pray to her. It's one thing to ask someone to pray to you. It's another when you pray to someone that they may pray for you.

Attached: stopRightThere.png (373x794, 241.11K)

I thought maybe this was a troll, but judging from your other posts in this thread you appear to be a legitimate Catholic. Openly defending idolatry, ladies and gentlemen! Well, at least you're honest about it, I give you that much. Kudos.

Attached: 729f4348cd14d513b0b0c4db592a31835346baa6a3263ce784b9d3d53c303f05.png (433x144, 34.3K)

SHUT UP PROTESTANT

Attached: 14519728_675790239237388_4946127276310437867_n.jpg (410x540, 19.42K)

This expression indicates prot's lack of understanding of the word "idolatry" it is accompanied usually with "muh statues" "muh icons" or "muh papacy"
See
Now get back to your church built on sand with no apostolic tradition set in ugly churches. Why do you even care? according to your "theology" all churches are legit because "muh sola fide"
lol prots

It's just your pride, nothing more. There are some people don't believe things just because you said so, and that gets you mad. Maybe if you had some level of regard for the actual word of God, you would realize how frivolous this all is: caring about things that are unrelated to scripture— because those are things you made up; but then you completely ignore actual scripture, because you didn't make that up.

For instance, scripture commands against idolatry.

Where you do you think Catholics got the idea that Mary was blessed among women and a faithful servant of the lord, the back of a cereal box?

Yes it does. The problem is when you don't understand what idolatry is and it becomes a boogieman that you're so afraid of you won't even put art in your churches, or remove crucifixes because they're "too Catholic".

Idolatry is worshiping something other than God as a god. Period.

Nobody worships Mary as a God
Nobody worships Saints as gods
Nobody worships the Pope as God
It's not idolatry no matter how much you screech about it.

Read
God knows what is in your heart user, He knows you put Him first even if you give the proper respect to other Christians. He's not going to throw you into Hell because you give Mary her due as the Mother of Jesus Christ so stop shitting your pants about it

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." –Galatians 3:22

"For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham;" – Romans 4:14-16

I put his word first, and in the word it says not to even make them. Being that I haven't received any special commands to break this Moral law, I am naturally afraid to break it. I'm supposed to obey the moral law, otherwise consequences follow for me. You haven't defined idolatry or worship for me, that comes from word of God.

Jesus is the Word, not the Bible.

I'm actually taken aback at just how smug that all sounds. You're wrong about my motivations, but I will pray nonetheless for humility. I suggest you do the same. The rosary of Our Lady is a great means to that end, and she herself is a perfect model of that virtue.
Behold thy mother!

Attached: quote-for-those-who-use-their-intelligence-and-their-study-as-a-weapon-the-rosary-is-most-josemaria-escriva-76-75-98.jpg (531x813 71.95 KB, 111.94K)

Attached: Dhg8CakUYAA3DYo.jpg (750x587, 99.96K)

An Orth here.
If you consult a dictionary of encyclopedia about the word 'idolatry', you will see that the widest definition of idolatry is 'adoration of a material object as (an image of) God or deity'. Do you use a different definition, dear OP? Because on your picture I don't see any images of God or deities.

Idolatry depends not only on the material object but also on the worshiper. Remember the bronze serpent erected by Moses. (Numbers 21:4-9) Was Moses an idolater? No, he wasn't. Was this snake an idol? No, during the Moses time it wasn't. And yet king Hezekiah destroyed the snake. (2 Kings 18:4) Why? Because during the Hezekiahs time this snake was an idol. It is one and the same object. In one case it isn't an idol and in another case it is.

Can an icon be an idol? Yes, surely it can. But it isn't because the actual Christians do not consider it an image of God or deity.

Attached: duminica-ortodoxiei-biruinta-icoanelor.jpg (793x557, 82.74K)

I remember someone telling me an analogy about how Catholics venerate images and stuff.
He said "we all kiss our mothers and our wives/girlfriends, but no one would dare imply that you kiss them for the same reasons."
But then I thought about it for a bit, and the analogy falls apart. There are different levels of kissing, and the kind of stuff that Catholics do with statues/icons is the equivalent of making out with your wife then your mom and saying "oh dude it's okay, my interior view of them is different".

They worship it. As it says in Psalm 96:5, For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

So yes, their idols are their gods. Whether it be an idol of their version of Jesus or their version of anyone else makes no difference to the point, it's all still their idols that they made and their gods that they worship through their practices.

again, this is only if Christ intended for His Church to be fractured among lines of division of dogma, which I strongly doubt.

if Christ had intended for there to be one Church, then the proclamations of this Church are binding, and to be separated from this Church, and to blaspheme against Mary are mortal sins.

I thought blasphemy only applied to God?
Are you implying Mary is God or does the sin of blasphemy extend beyond God Himself?

To deny Mary is the Mother of God, is to deny Jesus Christ is God.

There are certain logical consistencies in Christianity that must be maintained, sola fide is a 16 century tradition. Having faith in Jesus Christ does not mean you can run around spouting heresies.

1. WE said at the commencement of our work (chap. 2), that the knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9, 10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places (Book 2, chap. 8)–viz. how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek word eujsevbeia means "right worship;" for the Greeks, though groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero truly and shrewdly derives the name religion from relego, and yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched–viz. that honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. I rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license–the greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every man's mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their worship, as we have already observed.

But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which I set out–viz. that unless everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship is violated.

It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods, it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place, but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities, among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them, according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination, whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished–all that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after divers gods.

2. The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others. For latrei;a in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas doulei;a properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. Doulei;a unquestionably means service, and latrei;a worship. But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?

3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by nature are no gods," (Gal. 4:8). Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was prosku;nesi" (obeisance). In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not prosku;nei'n (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship, carries profanation of the divine honour along with it. The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:25). He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would have one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly, when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that he would have only one name–the reason being, that he might have nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God requires will be seen in its own place (Book 2, c. 7 and 8). He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own. But as it is inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards ambition followed–ambition which, decking man in the spoils of God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!

Attached: John Calvin.jpg (1200x1200, 252.94K)

Hahaha, what an impudent liar.

What do you mean by 'worship'? If by 'worship' you mean 'adoration, veneration as god', then you have to prove that the Catholics at Puebla actually consider Mary to be a goddess. There are many remnants of the former heathen religions among the indians in Mexico and these remnants live within the Catholic church there. If you say that the Catholic church must not allow these remnants, then say so clearly. :)

But if, on the other hand, by 'worship' you mean 'adoration, veneration (not necessarily as god)', then you have to prove that the Bible forbids the adoration and veneration even in cases when the worshiper clearly knows that the object of his adoration or veneration is not a god.

True. But don't you see the foolishness of the following discussion I see in this thread:

Kissing a cross isn't idolatry IF and only if you recognize that it is a mere representation of Jesus's sacrifice, or you're just kissing a piece of wood/metal.

KJV is a good Bible, but going to the level of Andersonites is just dumb. I prefer my Martin Luther version tbh.

As for the "veneration" of icons. It's pretty much retarded, unless you pray to the icon of Jesus, God Father or Holy Trinity, but even then you have to remember that these are only representations and that you have to pray to the real God, and not the picture of Him. If they help you focus on God, then by all means use them, but they're not needed.

Tell me how it's not prideful of you to completely disregard the meaing of the word and accuse people of "idolatry". Showing you a definition does not work on you because you already made your mind by knowing nothing.
I'll just say this: If you want to understand what Catholicism is, you have to study Catholic doctrine, not rely on BS you hear in your "church". If you choose not to it's all well but don't be surprised when Caths call you out on you not knowing shit about things. IF you want to understand you first have to listen then you can make up your mind. All you show here is pride - not willing to listen to anything ever.

...

I don't have a clue how the Catholics view to their icons. But in the Orthodox Church we use the icons as sort of windows to the heavens and the spiritual world. Something like devices for making a video phone call.

When you make a video phone call with your friend, whom you are you talking to? To your friend, or to the image on your cellphone?

The icons of God Father and Holy Trinity (the Father painted as an old man and the Holy Spirit as a dove) are a matter of controversy in the Orthodox Church. Such icons have been condemned in both Greek and Russian councils. But they exist, nevertheless.

"Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." (Deuteronomy 4:12,15-17)

It just looks cool. We don't think that's literally her in that shrine.

Bad news everyone, the Andersonites aren’t the only ones that kiss Bibles…

yes I understand in the Orthodox Church the Evengelion is only thought to be a SYMBOL of Christ, just trying to rile up the proties

Attached: CA25287D-C0B4-4097-A31C-BDFC72FD2F7C.jpeg (210x295, 46.79K)

Without the Bible, which Jesus do you believe in? The Muslim Jesus?

Attached: 425c2433990ee8d5573de2930b522d0017990c138f48dc42fab48197a8fe8432.png (620x609, 315.85K)

That does not give Mary divinity.
This has to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard from a Catholic.

Spics don't understand anything else.

Without the Apostolic Fathers to write the bible and who clearly said obey the bishop, and eat the body and blood you would have no Bible.

Mary's womb was divine because it contained our lord for 9 months. You say his word is holy but you then say the mother the birthed him was not mad holy by him.

Where did I say it did?

But, it did give her Honor, and Grace, and in her flawless humility, she is venerated as the New Ark of the Covenant, because she gave birth to Our Lord, which is undeniable.

You obviously never even bothered to read a word of Catholic dogma, then.

"And when the ark of the Lord was come into the city of David, Michol the daughter of Saul, looking out through a window, saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord: and she despised him in her heart"

You and the rest of the Protestants that bad-mouth Mary are much like Michol in your massively flawed pride.

...

You prots will never learn, will ya?

Attached: f70e62c82843baa1d13509937c7dc65759cc6dc3e358779ee6e25e40cc677d93.png (541x720, 946.57K)

Mexican Catholicism is heavily modified by their original pagan religion. They still celebrate day of the dead and name their kids Jesus. They don't give a damn about the rules.

...

That is not idolatry. Idolatry is what happens in Spain where people idolatrices their local flavor of Jesus.

I mean, yes, if you pray to Jesus in front of a Jesus sculpt because the statue helps you mentalice or channel your pray, its ok. The problem is that in Spain there are "cults" for special versions of Jesus, like "el Nazareno" (the Nazarene) in Madrid, where a lot of people waits a lot of hours to visit him because that specific statue of Jesus is more miraculous than the one in their local church.

In El Rocio there is a statue of Mary that is visited by thousands and there are fights to touch the statue in his day.

That is not the same as what hapens in easter. That is that there are guilds that made the statues and take care of them, these statues represent different things that happened in the last week of Jesus life, and are taken out in procession by the guild members.

/thread

You probably think they're worshiping a piece of fabric too lol

Attached: pledge-of-allegiance-under-god-ftr.jpg (1240x775, 179.68K)

it is a problem, but then if we followed jew laws then even the cross is an idol. quick ban all crucifixes!!!!

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him,

Attached: images.jpg (259x195, 12.98K)

Why do we feel we need a religion to believe in God, or a house/statue/cross/symbol/shrine ect to talk to him/worship him though, if you believe in him then he hears you no matter where you are, what if that little voice in you conscious that second guesses you is his way of communicating, me no no, just a thought.

Also the cross is a tad mean, its basically a reminder that we killed/torment and made an example of the son of God and we are not supposed to need reminded that he exists, faith as it were.

It's a reminder of the most important thing that Jesus did: his horrific, painful death for us.

It's expressing respect for the instrument of our salvation.

If logic, facts and reason worked on Catholics, theyd be Protestants.

They live to defend the organization and its power, long after it has proven useless and corrupt.

Let's get a clear aside that everyone should be able to agree on, Hispanic and Latin Catholicism is pretty much just heresy and needs a fresh Inquisition like, decades ago

Y E P

christian server

discord gg/Xw4V7Jb