Cross

[WIP]

The reverence exemplified by that behavior is rendered to the One who was on the cross.
Np one prays to a medal, pendant, or statue. A person prays to the one represented by the item.
No one (assuming sanity) worships a cross or a crucifix or an icon or a statue.
Kissing a cross or other image is no more idolatry than kissing a picture of your wife, kids, grand kids, or even a beloved pet.
Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense is regularly proclaimed by those who have imaginary issues with the Roman church.
I am saddened to see yet another example of this false information being posted in this Christian forum.

A more focused reading of the catechism would provided the proper understanding and, of course, priests are available to explain and answer concerns. There was no need to struggle when the correct information was readily available.

I would have to respectfully disagree with this.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;” Exodus 20:4 NKJV

When I read the above I read that He didn’t say it was okay to do this so long as one venerated only that whom which it represents. He plainly said don’t do it so I won’t use anything as a replacement for the One Living God. It isn't necessary for we have but one mediator and that is Jesus. That is all I'll say about this.

 

[Roro1972]

I've never seen this and am disturbed by it.
It's good to honor Peter and all those Christians that gave their life for their faith.
But Peter did not die for us, Jesus did. I'm not surprised at Chelsea, but I'm shocked at the
upside down cross behind the Pope.

I would like to add for Roro1972 that a cross that is "fatter" at the ends has no particular meaning at all and is fine to wear.

Thanks I did not know that.

 

[Jim Parker]

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;” Exodus 20:4 NKJV
When I read the above I read that He didn’t say it was okay to do this so long as one venerated only that whom which it represents

Then don't have any photos of your family.

He plainly said don’t do it so I won’t use anything as a replacement for the One Living God.

None of those things are a "replacement for the one living God."
That is a fabrication.

It isn't necessary for we have but one mediator and that is Jesus.

No body said any other was "necessary"

That is all I'll say about this.

OK
I'll just get in the back of the bus with the Catholics and only drink from the Catholic fountain.
Got to know my place.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would have to respectfully disagree with this.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;” Exodus 20:4 NKJV

When I read the above I read that He didn’t say it was okay to do this so long as one venerated only that whom which it represents. He plainly said don’t do it so I won’t use anything as a replacement for the One Living God. It isn't necessary for we have but one mediator and that is Jesus. That is all I'll say about this.

Hi WIP

I'd just like to say that this is why the O.T. gives us such a difficult time.
Graven images were a big problem back then.
We remember the graven image of the cow.
The Greeks had graven images all over! They're still standing in Europe. In old churches and in Piazza's, etc.

We in the Christian community do not have this problem today.
A statue could be placed somewhere in a church so a person could concentrate better.
It could just be a thing of beauty.

But it's not a graven image as was meant in Exodus.
No one that I know, and I know many Catholics and used to be one, prays to a statue.

My two cents....

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi WIP

I'd just like to say that this is why the O.T. gives us such a difficult time.
Graven images were a big problem back then.
We remember the graven image of the cow.
The Greeks had graven images all over! They're still standing in Europe. In old churches and in Piazza's, etc.

We in the Christian community do not have this problem today.
A statue could be placed somewhere in a church so a person could concentrate better.
It could just be a thing of beauty.

But it's not a graven image as was meant in Exodus.
No one that I know, and I know many Catholics and used to be one, prays to a statue.

My two cents....

When I was a Kid, my mother took me to church (roman catholic) and there was a statue of a man holding a baby.
My mother told me it was St. Anthony holding the baby Jesus.
I started asking questions and my mother always changed the subject.
She would say just pray to St. Anthony and he will tell Jesus.
That's always been the catholic way to me.

 

[Papyrus_dust]

The cross behind the pope and that chair being made of stone, is indicative of the false notion that the Apostle Peter was the rock upon which Christendom's church began after Jesus.

That Peter was the one upon whom Jesus built "his church". When Peter was to be crucified he asked to be crucified upside down. Because he did not feel worthy of being crucified in the same manner as the Lord.
The upside down cross on the stone throne , behind the pope in that picture, is reminiscent of those two facts in Roman Catholicism. Peter, the rock upon which Jesus built his church.

Somewhere along the way, satanists took this symbol as their own and people now have mixed feelings about it.

Satanists adopted the upside down cross for two reasons. One, to mock Christianity being Satanic practice is antithetical to Christian values and morals. And secondly, to honor the adverse philosophy, and its countenance, the devil. Being his image and likeness in the Christian faith is the countenance of all things that satisfy being in the flesh.
There are two types of Satanists. The atheistic Satanist, for which the prior descriptions apply because they are hedonists , sometimes professing Nihilism. And are egocentric.
And the other type are the theistic's. Who believe in and worship a literal Satan while also adhering to the prior descriptions of carnal satisfactions. While also committing to rites and rituals and Sabbat calendars. The hedonist Satanists may or may not do that part.

The upside down broken cross in a circle (hippie peace sign) is satanic as it dates back to the Egyptian school of black magic and has many explanations of it's use.

The hippie peace sign is actually an upside down broken cross

The Untold Story Of The Peace Sign
The peace symbol originated as a logo based on an “individual in despair . . . in the manner of Goya’s peasant before the firing squad.”

 

[Jim Parker]

But it's not a graven image as was meant in Exodus.

Exactly.
Bull's eye.

 

[GodsGrace]

When I was a Kid, my mother took me to church (roman catholic) and there was a statue of a man holding a baby.
My mother told me it was St. Anthony holding the baby Jesus.
I started asking questions and my mother always changed the subject.
She would say just pray to St. Anthony and he will tell Jesus.
That's always been the catholic way to me.

Funny.
St. Anthony wasn't around when Jesus was a baby.
Catholics don't know their religion.
It's truly a shame for that church.
But you can't blame the church for what your mother didn't know.
I'm sure you've reassessed everything as an adult and left for other reasons.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The hippie peace sign dates back many centuries.
Don't be fooled by large print.

https://www.gotquestions.org/peace-sign.html

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Funny.
St. Anthony wasn't around when Jesus was a baby.
Catholics don't know their religion.
It's truly a shame for that church.
But you can't blame the church for what your mother didn't know.
I'm sure you've reassessed everything as an adult and left for other reasons.

Nope.
It was all St.Anthony's fault.

 

[Jim Parker]

When Peter was to be crucified he asked to be crucified upside down. Because he did not feel worthy of being crucified in the same manner as the Lord.

It is demonstrable from scripture that Peter was the leader of the apostles.
But he was an apostle, not a bishop.
At the time of the primitive church, (around AD 40) a Bishop (overseer; episcopos) was the leader of the local congregation. He would have been trained and ordained by an apostle.
I do not believe he was ever the bishop (overseer) of the local church at Rome. Eusebius names Linus as Rome's first bishop, followed by Anencletus and then Clement.(Eusebius, The Church History, A New Translation with Commentary, Pail L. Maier, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Mi. 1999, p.181)

As to the Church being built on on Peter:
Consider:
1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

and

Eph 2:19-22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The church is built on Peter's statement of fact: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat 16:16)

The doctrine that Peter had primacy over the other apostles and over the entire church grew out of the political conflicts of the Church Constantine made Constantinople (Byzantium) the capitol and "new Rome" of the Roman Empire. The bishops of Rome began to assert that they had authority over all other bishops. This assertion was to become one of the issues of the Great Schism between the Eastern ans Western Church.

 

[Jim Parker]

Catholics don't know their religion.

And most Protestants don't know how Catholic their religion is.
But, yes, it has also been my experience that, to a great extent, RC's do not know their religion and Bible much like the members of any of the mega-churches.

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

And most Protestants don't know how Catholic their religion is.
But, yes, it has also been my experience that, to a great extent, RC's do not know their religion and Bible much like the members of any of the mega-churches.

iakov the fool

If it weren't for the early Catholic church there would be no church.

Regarding Peter, he was certainly a leader in the church.
Jesus was the founder of His church.
But His church was built by the Apostles.
One of the reasons I trust my faith is because I can trust what the Apostles tell me.

 

[Jim Parker]

One of the reasons I trust my faith is because I can trust what the Apostles tell me.

Thank you!

 

[GodsGrace]

And most Protestants don't know how Catholic their religion is.
But, yes, it has also been my experience that, to a great extent, RC's do not know their religion and Bible much like the members of any of the mega-churches.

iakov the fool

PS
Interesting about the mega churches.
This would make a good thread.

 

[Jim Parker]

PS
Interesting about the mega churches.
This would make a good thread.

A single pastor cannot effectively lead more than about 200 people.
If a congregation has 10,000 members, they would need about 50 pastors to effective lead them.
If there were 50 pastors on staff at a church "receiving their living from preaching the gospel" (1Cor 9:14) with an average salary of (pick a number) $50,000 per year plus healthcare insurance for his family (now we're looking at about $65,000/year with payroll taxes) then the pastoral salary budget would be around $3,250,000.
So "pastoring" is reduced to a sing-along followed by a collection and then a lecture on Sunday morning and smaller events Sunday evening and mid week.
And real discipleship gets kicked to the curb and the believers are edified to the fullness of toddlers in "Pull-Ups" in Christ while society goes to hell in a hand-basket for lack of effective Christian influence.

But I digress.......

iakov the fool

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If it weren't for the early Catholic church there would be no church.

Regarding Peter, he was certainly a leader in the church.
Jesus was the founder of His church.
But His church was built by the Apostles.
One of the reasons I trust my faith is because I can trust what the Apostles tell me.

False
God will always have his church

 

[Papyrus_dust]

It is demonstrable from scripture that Peter was the leader of the apostles.
But he was an apostle, not a bishop.
At the time of the primitive church, (around AD 40) a Bishop (overseer; episcopos) was the leader of the local congregation. He would have been trained and ordained by an apostle.
I do not believe he was ever the bishop (overseer) of the local church at Rome. Eusebius names Linus as Rome's first bishop, followed by Anencletus and then Clement.(Eusebius, The Church History, A New Translation with Commentary, Pail L. Maier, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Mi. 1999, p.181)

As to the Church being built on on Peter:
Consider:
1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

and

Eph 2:19-22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The church is built on Peter's statement of fact: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat 16:16)

The doctrine that Peter had primacy over the other apostles and over the entire church grew out of the political conflicts of the Church Constantine made Constantinople (Byzantium) the capitol and "new Rome" of the Roman Empire. The bishops of Rome began to assert that they had authority over all other bishops. This assertion was to become one of the issues of the Great Schism between the Eastern ans Western Church.

You forgot the link to that resource. I'd love to see what else they have at the site.

 

[GodsGrace]

You forgot the link to that resource. I'd love to see what else they have at the site.

Sorry. I just can't help myself...
Not everyone learns their faith from "sites".

What did we do before sites???

 

[Papyrus_dust]

False
God will always have his church

AMEN! However, you'll find Roman Catholics will say of their church that it was established in the year 1. Meaning with the birth of our Savior. That's not true of course.


The Origins of the Church at Rome
https://bible.org/article/origins-church-rome


Conclusion
"Based on a study of relevant biblical and extra-biblical documents, it is generally agreed that non-apostolic Jewish Christians brought the faith of Christ to Rome in the early decades of the church. After generating both interest and controversy within the synagogues, Christianity was forced to reorganize in the wake of Claudius’s edict against the Jews. The resulting Gentile-dominated church that received Paul’s letter in the late 50’s met in small groups around the city of Rome but maintained communication and held onto a common identity and mission. Paul and Peter leave their mark on these believers, though they merely strengthen the work that had already begun to flourish in the capital city. Beyond these main points, scholars still differ on the exact timeline of the birth and growth of the Christian community, as well as on to what degree Roman reactions against Jewish instability stem from disagreements about Christ. When all is said though, the overall picture of the emergence of Christianity in Rome constitutes yet another significant example of God’s extraordinary work in the early church during the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection."