Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

(Internet search brought you here? This post can be read on my new blog which conveniently does not randomly cut off the right hand side of the text.)

Today’s gospel reading for the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul reminded me of this entry and I thought I would re-post it. I just love it when suddenly a scripture passage comes alive for me and this is one that really has since I became Catholic.
Quote:

Well Eastern Orthodox Christians for starters.

No. They are not. They don’t even pretend that they are in communing with Jesus in the same way and most Protestants I know go out of their way to say that the communion is only symbolic. In Catholic theology the Sacrament of Holy Communion is intimately connected with the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage. It is not at all hyperbole to draw the parallel between the intimate communion enabled by the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion and the act of marital intimacy. Many of the Church’s teaching regarding marriage, including the RCC’s rather unpopular and persistent notion that marital intimacy must be a total self-giving, life-giving embrace….ie….no artificial contraception. It’s also why Catholics are prohibited from receiving communion outside of the Catholic Church and why we do not knowingly allow those who are not IN communion with the Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion. Spiritual adultery anyone? Yes. It’s that serious.

OK. Seriously. After reading quite a bit on this board (www.revivalschool.com) you SERIOUSLY want to argue that you are unified with Catholics? That we are unified with the same Head? Merciful heaven! I am probably already on y’alls prayer lists for getting me “saved.” You don’t get it both ways. Either the Catholic Church is right in which case you are definitely not in communion and you need to be checking out your local RCIA classes (classes for those converting to the RCC) or you think that Catholics are apostates on the “road to hell” as I have read multiple times on these forums.

Sorry. But you are mixing up your early church problems here. 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 is speaking of the Eucharistic meal and those partaking unworthily and NOT of the other meal offered after worship.

How is it possible that you believe that partaking of a symbol unworthily makes you guilty of the Body of Our Lord? If I tear up your picture, I might be guilty of disrespect but certainly NOT guilty of your body. As for Judas, it isn’t just a Catholic interpretation of the gospels that our Lord instituted the Eucharist AFTER Judas left the room.

Yes. They were churches under the authority of the bishop. Elders (presbyters) were appointed to assist the bishop in governing ONE church that happened to meet in different places.

Agreed. And yes, I think you are playing a semantics game.

WE?….excuse me but just WHERE does it say that individual believers are to execute judgment on on Our Lord’s Church? If you examine the writings of the early church fathers and the history of the early church, you can see the context of the warnings of those “wolves in sheep’s clothing”…it is those who teach without the authority of the Church. Or those who continued to preach heresy after they were disciplined by their local bishops. The mere presence of the writings of the ECF’s is stark testimony to the fact that the early church was indeed highly organized and the bishops held the teaching authority. They [the early bishops] wrote letters to churches in far flung places as if they expected that they had authority over these congregations and guess what? They DID! It is for the bishops to determine who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing and NOT for the lay people. In fact, it was the bishops who continually had to remind the faithful that they were to remain faithful to the teachings of the bishops and NOT make their own judgments about the many heretics running around.

which of course begs for the question…..What did they do BEFORE the Bible was written? And who was it that decided what was and was not Sacred Scripture? And how is it that so many people who accept without question the judgment of the men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to discern what was and was not supposed to be in canon…then reject what those men believed it to be say. They men who set the canon of Sacred Scripture were NOT sola scriptura. They were not sola fide. They believed in purgatory. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Another really good verse in Timothy is this one…..

Just because something is hard to do, doesn’t mean it is impossible. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church….and the Eastern Orthodox Church….was established in Sacred Scripture and by the testimony of the lives of the Apostles and their successors. Martin Luther was not the only voice in the Catholic Church at that time, or before him, or after him for that matter, that quietly, persistently and fruitfully worked for reform. And reform when it does come from within the structure of the church bears much positive fruit. The Reformation was a blood bath and there were gross sinners on all sides. As many as 100,000 peasants were killed in Germany. By contrast the Spanish Inquisition  which killed perhaps as many as 10,000 in 350 years was a walk in the park! Not that I am condoning either btw!

In some respects they were submitted to each other. Servants of each other, but I am sorry there was a whole lot of “domineering” going on in the early church and some of it is even recorded in Sacred Scripture. The entire book of Galatians for example….talk about your dressing down!

Well I would say that if anointing came from man then it wouldn’t count would it? And this whole apostolic succession thing would go up in smoke. But the anointing is something that comes from God working though us his servants. Just like Saul was anointed king and STAYED anointed king even when God anointed David as his successor. David understood that he was not the one to execute judgment on God’s anointed and that was for God himself to so. God might have used Samuel to bring the message that judgment was coming but Saul never ceased to be God’s anointed king until he DIED.

Just because he didn’t get along with Peter doesn’t mean that Peter didn’t anoint him. In fact, God worked through Peter to inflict the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received the revelation (Acts 10:44-46) allowing gentiles into the Church without circumcision and imposed that over the vociferous objections (Acts 15:19) of many (thus the entire book of Galatians)…yeah, he had a hypocrisy problem which led to Paul giving him a stern talking to but that doesn’t put Paul in charge.

Yes. Through Peter. At times, God may raise up others with special charisms to correct and to chasten those in the chair of Peter….such as St. Catherine of Siena….but God gave to Peter and his successors a special gift. I believe that God can work through sinful men who appear unworthy…..and I am grateful. It gives me hope after all.

By what authority?

Studied papal history have you? You might be surprised at the number of miracles attributed to Popes throughout history. You could start here.  Beyond that if you are looking for miracles, look at the lives of the Catholic Saints! I know many miracles that happen in Catholic churches….even my little parish. By the priests, and the old ladies, and the children. Even so the absence of flashy miracles or reports of such is hardly a matter of disqualification for the papacy. God gives the charism for healing and miracles to those He wills and it’s pretty clear that not every one of us has it. It’s one of the reasons we need each other.

And speaking of miracles, where is the miraculous confirmation of Protestant doctrines such as symbolic Holy Communion?  Take a look at Eucharistic miracles here. 

Some Protestants continue to allege that Catholics worship images despite their constant denial. I happen to be one of those Protestants.

And I sighed and ran for the bucket of water.  The first thing that really bothers me is that this really should not be an issue for Protestants seeking to evangelize Catholics. As a Catholic I find this whole you-worship-statues thing to be seriously irritating because it suggests that I am incapable of defining what I worship and what I don’t. I promise you that I am not shy about saying what I believe in and if I was worshiping a statue, I would loudly and proudly proclaim it. I am occasionally absent-minded. If you read this blog at all, you know I am the typo queen and proofreading is not my strong suit, but I am not a blithering idiot. I know what I worship and it isn’t statues!! Or images! Or Mary for that matter. Here’s a hint to all of you Protestants who want to see me leave the Roman Catholic Church. You would be so much more effective if you worked at changing my mind about something that we AGREE that I am doing, rather than wasting your time convincing me that I am doing something that I am not and telling me to stop doing that thing I am not doing to begin with. (If you have a glass of wine, that last sentence will make sense.) If you want to get me to leave the Roman Catholic Church, stop picking at the edges of what I believe in and YANK THE RUG out from under me and you can start by focusing on the things that I freely admit doing.

And as hideously offensive as sites like this are, at least they get it! Let’s take the trivial stuff off of the table. I believe that in the Eucharist there is no longer bread and wine but Jesus present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. I WORSHIP Jesus in the Eucharist. When I am alone in the Adoration chapel, I remove my shoes (holy ground), I cover myself, and I prostrate myself on the ground and worship my Lord. If I am guilty of idolatry, it is THERE and not over some picture. I know that if the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about the Real Presence I am guilty of the worst idolatry and anything I have done in relationship to a statue or a picture will pale in comparision. If I am going to hell for idolatry it will be because I believe Jesus, my Lord, my Sin Sacrifice, my Shepherd is truly present in the Eucharist and worship Him there and the Roman Catholic Church was wrong about that.
 
That brings me to my next point. I have long suspected that Protestants accuse Catholics of worshipping all sorts of things that they don’t, because they [the Protestants] have not been exposed to worship as Jesus intended. So much is worship in a Protestant church if it happens on Sunday morning. (And I say this as a former Protestant.) Lead the congregation in singing songs that make us feel good about Jesus…worship led by the “Worship Team.” Pray….worship. A pastor-led bible study….worship. It’s no wonder that they look at a Catholic and say to themselves “If I did that, it would be worship; therefore, they are worshiping [that statue, Mary, that picture, etc.]” Since when should we get to define what worship is? Cain had his own ideas….got thumped. Aaron had some ideas….got thumped…along with everyone who agreed with him. Nadab and Abihu had their own ideas and got blasted!! Samuel lost his right to the kingship of Israel because he decided it didn’t really matter enough to do it God’s way and after all he had a really important reason like Samuel was selling indulgences and didn’t show up in time! (Oh wait, I am mixing up my stories it was other people who decided that they had the right to re-define worship because they didn’t like how quickly God’s appointed representatives were cleaning up a problem.) When I look in the Old Testament I see very clearly that worship involves sacrifice and offerings and it’s more about sacrifice than offering and in the New Testament, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament Passover meal (which had a sacrifice) and the Old Testament sacrificial system in Himself and decreed a new form of worship for the New Covenant. (Jesus in the Catholic Mass has a slightly more expanded version of that). Jesus said at the Last Supper, on the night He was to give himself freely to the executioners as our eternal sin sacrifice, “Do this in memory of me.” There it is. That’s how we are to worship Him….if you are not remembering Him in your worship as He decreed, if you are not eating from the Fruit of the Tree of Life (Jesus on the Cross); then, you don’t have enough Jesus. Just as the Jews presented sin sacrifices in worship that prefigured the ONE Perfect Sin Sacrifice, Catholics enter into the eternally present worship in Heaven and re-present (not re-sacrifice) the ONE Perfect Sin Sacrifice. Yes I know that sacrifice happened only once, but we who are still stuck in these sinful bodies and trapped in time with these puny little brains and finite ability to understand need to remind ourselves of the price and feed our souls periodically. Kind of like having sex once was enough to seal the marriage covenant but renewing the covenant is a good idea for healthy marriage. I believe that the reason Protestants consistently accuse Catholics of worshipping things other than Jesus is because they don’t worship Jesus enough. They have been confused with counterfeit forms of worship and are not properly anchored in Jesus. I know that statement will send more than a few readers for their own buckets, but what would you have me to say? That I receive Jesus, physically, actually, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity and that it doesn’t really make a difference? (Why Holy Communion is not symbolic).

Ok those are my thoughts, now I would like to briefly address Dr. Mizzi’s main point in the post I linked about and his “logical conclusion.” Dr. Mizzi fairly states the Catholic postion and quotes from paragraph 2132 of the CCC:

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honour paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

And then says well if you venerate images of saints then you must be worshipping images of God because that is that is the “logical conclusion”….he says it with more words than that but that’s the general gist. What he is missing is this. The veneration directed toward the image of a Saint is not to the image but the Saint. Just as I might kiss the picture of my husband as I call my husband to my memory (if I was a picture-kisser and I am not) I don’t confuse the picture with my husband and my husband is not going to come home and accuse me of being unfaithful. It is NOT different with an image of Jesus. The image of Jesus might call to mind Jesus Himself and might call me to fruitful prayer and meditation on Jesus….not the image…..as I detailed in this post here. (Statues, Closets and the Council of Carthage) Really and truly. I am not making that up.

How is the second commandment different from the first?
The first commandment (You shall have no other gods before Me) forbids the worship of false gods, whereas the second forbids the false worship of God. The first tells us whom to worship; the second tells us how to worship him.

What is required in the second commandment?
The commandment forbids us to make and worship images of God. We are called to know God as he revealed himself, and to serve him according to his ordinances, not in any other way devised by human wisdom. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

Does the second commandment prohibit the making or use of all images?
The second commandment does not prohibit paintings and sculptures which are not intended to be used in the worship of God. This is clear from the words “you shall not bow down to them nor serve them”. Moreover, shortly afterwards giving the Ten Commandments, God instructed Israel to make two cherubims of gold for the Ark of the Covenant, and later on, a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:28; Numbers 21:9). Solomon decorated the temple with twelve oxen, and its walls with carved images of cherubims (1 Kings 7:25; 6:29). In all these instances, the Israelites were not called to “bow down” or “serve” the images. When the Israelites began to burn incense to the bronze serpent, the godly king Hezekiah broke it to pieces.

EXACTLY!! The OT clearly records images being used not as objects of worship but as aids to worship. And guess what? This is EXACTLY what the Catechism sets forth as official Catholic teaching. “2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.^“

Can we make an image of God?
We should not make any image of God. When God made a covenant with Israel, the Lord spoke to the people, and they heard the sound of his voice, but they did not see any form. God did so on purpose. “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female…” (Deuteronomy 4:15, 16). Elsewhere the Scripture reproves us, “To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?” (Isaiah 40:18).

Can we make an image of Christ since he was made flesh?
No, not least because we do not know how he looked like. The hundreds of different pictures of Jesus testify against each other that they are false images. What is called a picture or a statue of Christ is not his true likeness. Like the idols of old, the modern portrayal of the Lord is “a teacher of lies” (Habakkuk 2:18). Moreover, Jesus is the true God, and therefore the only appropriate response to seeing his image is worship and adoration. Sadly, the “Jesus” imprinted on the mind by artistic creations is “another Jesus” – an idol. False images lead to false worship.

Sorry but this idea is completely mistaken, since we are never to worship the image itself. Ever. Ever Ever. First, on what basis is the claim made that the “only appropriate response to seeing an image of Jesus is worship and adoration”? Is that a scriptural command? Citation please? By what authority are we told that this this is the “only appropriate response”? That’s like saying the only appropriate response to seeing a picture of my husband is to kiss it and treat it as if it was really him, since that is what I would do to him in person. I assure you one and all, that I can tell the difference between a picture of my husband and the real thing. I also understand the difference between kissing a picture of my husband because I am thinking of the real thing and what really happens between the two of us when we are truly together. Next, how does an image that may not portray an exact likeness of Jesus, lead to false worship? The pupose of the image is to call to mind what is portrayed by the image. Kind of like the way people who write about matters of faith use words to call to mind things of the Divine. That’s what the writers of Sacred Scripture did with their words even before these words were singled out as scripture. Is it wrong to call to mind the things of God by speaking of Him, by meditating on Him, by teaching of Him? That’s what words do you know. Is calling Jesus to mind because I have read about Him in Sacred Scripture, or read about Him in the words of a faithful teacher of the Gospel, or lifted my voice in song about Him essentially different than calling Jesus to mind because a statue was the impetus for the thought? A picture or a statue or other image is simply a different form of communication and is fraught with the same sort of peril as written communication. It can be uplifting. It can be false. It can be deceiving or instructive. We must prayerfully discern an appropriate response to everything that is communicated to us whether the message is communicated with words or images! We must examine not only what is present, but what is not and by what authority the message is given.

False image indeed…..

Did God give us an image of himself?
God has revealed himself in his Son; “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Christ is the perfect icon of God. But then, how can we know Christ in truth? The Lord himself answers, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). We know Christ in Scripture, not in the imaginations of sculptors. During our pilgrimage on earth, we are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The apostle Peter reminds us that we believe and rejoice in him even though “now you do not see him”(1 Peter 1:8). Yet we have a living hope. Eagerly we await that glorious day when “we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Then our joy will be complete.

And for those who are illiterate (and that would be MOST of the Christians who lived in the last 2,000 years)? Or those in the last 2000 years of Christianity who couldn’t afford books? Movable type has only been around for the last 500 years or so, that leaves 1500 years of outrageously expensive books. How about the presently illiterate Christians or those who do not have a Bible? How about the dyslexic? Or the blind before braille and books on tape? Does the prohibition against images of Jesus extend to painted pictures in a preschooler’s collection of Bible stories? (And if not, why not? Wouldn’t they be the most susceptible to “false images”?) And do “you” really manage to read the Bible without forming a mental image of the people it portrays? Like sculptors have a lock on imagining such things? My children tell me ALL the time you know that a character in a movie did (or didn’t) look like I imagine him/her when they were reading the book. Is sculpting an imagined image somehow worse then imagining it in the first place? We are called to live by faith and not my sight, but I don’t see even the slighest suggestion in the context of Sacred Scripture that this verse was to be applied to images of Jesus. Unless, you are equating an image of Jesus with the reality? I honestly don’t know anyone Protestant or Catholic over the age of two that thinks a painting, icon, statute or other image of Jesus is the reality. We are STILL walking by faith because we do not see Jesus as the Apostles did or as Thomas did and they did not see Him as He is in Eternity. We do not see heaven and the place Our Lord is preparing for us. We imagine such things but I don’t know anyone who thinks that they can come close to the reality in ANY form. I am left to wonder if “you” Mr. Mizzi, think that Catholics DO think that they are beholding a reality and you do not, which leads me to wonder why you have such a poor opinion of the mental capacities of Catholics? Or do you think that such images portray a reality and you personally are afraid you will be confused by it and you think Catholics suffer the same difficulties with reality and the imaginary images that you do?

Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God. He was fully human and we can portray Him so. Iconoclasm was condemned as heresy in the seventh ecumenical council of Nicea:

“We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, … which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands.”

Of course, Mr. Mizzi you are free to believe that those scriptures you quoted above really do apply to images but I have to wonder why it is that your interpretation should be considered authoritative when the near unanimity of Christian opinion in all times and places disagrees with you? Did the Christian men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they could infallibly determine what was and was not Sacred Scripture at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo believe that those verse were to be interpreted that way? Did the men who taught them? What was the practice of the early church before the canon of the NT was established?

Why should we obey the second commandment?
God threatens severe punishments on those who disobey and promises great blessings on the obedient. If we love God, let us worship him as he has commanded. If however we attempt to worship him by graven images, contrary to his commandment, we are found to be haters of God and worthy of his wrath.

Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi
www.justforcatholics.org
Used by permission

Yes God does threaten severe punishments to those who disobey. Actually, it is those of us who do not embrace sola fide that have the theology to match the above statement and believe that Our Lord meant it when He said in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” You can’t separate good works and faith.

Jesus said to His Apostles that those who listened to them (and their successors) listened to Him. We should all be listening to what the men who set the canon of the NT believed those same scriptures to mean, and just for starters they were most assuredly not iconoclasts.

I’m not really an “official” apologist for my Catholic faith but I do spend a lot of time both talking to others and listening to other discuss the Catholic faith. Lately, I have been struck by how often a question answer-er simply answers with a statement about his/her own beliefs rather than seeking to match an answer to the beliefs of the person asking the question.  So when person A asks how she can approach a friend who is asking “Can God make a rock so big He can’t life it?” Person B says “Well I just say God has no limits.” Or when Person C says “I believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist but only spiritually otherwise how could He be in so many tabernacles at once.” Person D, with the best of intentions answers with the standard answer about the Real Presence but nary a word about the two natures of Christ.” It’s a trap I personally find it necessary to guard against continually…being so sure I know the question that I begin to answer without meeting the person with the question where he/she actually is. I suppose sometimes, it’s because we don’t know how to answer the question that is being asked. Then we need to ask the Holy Spirit for the humility to say “I don’t know, but I will look it up. I will pray about it. I will ask as many people as I need to, but I will find the answer and get back to you.”

Perhaps though we need to ask the Holy Spirit for the Gift of Tongues. St. Peter and the Apostles spoke to the people in their own language at Pentecost. Why should that gift be limited to only speaking in a foreign langauge? If we aren’t so busy assuming we both understand the question and know the answer we might stop to listen, to pray, and to open ourselves to the working of the Holy Spirit. After all, it’s only the Holy Spirit working through us that effects conversions and when the Holy Spirit is speaking it’s always a gift of Grace. Lord, help me to stay out of the way! 

Grant, O Lord,
that none may love you less this day because of me;
that never a word or act of mine may turn one soul from thee;
and, ever daring, yet one more grace I would implore:
That many souls this day, because of me, may love thee more.
Amen.

**************************************

Lord Jesus,
I give you my hands to do your work.
I give you my feet to go your way.
I give you my eyes to see as you see.
I give you my tongue to speak your words.
I give you my mind to think as you think.
I give you my spirit so that you may pray in me.
I give you myself so that you may grow in me.
So that it is you, Lord, who lives, and works, and prays in me.
Amen.

Prayers from A Pocket Guide to Catholic Apologetics by Patrick Madrid

It’s been a crazy week around here. I feel like sometime on Monday the rocket sled I didn’t know I was standing on took off at warp speed and I have been hanging off the back trying to climb back on ever since. The big topic of the week on that homeschooling forum was Mary…again…and it ended up in a “discussion” about how Catholics were clearly in violation of scripture if they knelt and prayed with a statue in sight. It was such a productive conversation. “Do too.” “Do NOT!” You DO SO!!”….etc. I have suggested repeatedly that those who wish to see me leave the Catholic Church would make more headway if they didn’t waste their time trying to convince me that I am really doing something that I adamantly hold that I am not doing rather than just  starting with an area that I of acknowledged disagreement. Anyway…as the conversation was winding to a close I put up a summary of what I believe with respect to the bowing down to statues issue and it seemed like it fit here. Perhaps it will make up for the paucity of blogging for the rest of the week.

First let me start by sharing my personal experience. Today is Ash Wednesday (but who knows when I will finish this and post it) and because of a commitment that I made to my pastor, I had to be present (before and after) at all of the services where ashes where distributed and for the two Masses. My home is not terribly close to our church and at some times of the day it can take 30 minutes to drive that distance and there isn’t much point in driving home instead of waiting at the church for 60+ minutes for the next service. Anyway, I had considerable time to spend at church today without any assigned occupation.

In the early morning, it was very cold and windy outside (although Minnesota residents would beg to differ) and I do not do cold without a great deal of whining. As soon as I was able, I made a beeline for the church to pray.  I had just over an hour to pray in the quiet church…what a blessing! I went to my favorite prayer spot in the church (see the x on my diagram) and I knelt in prayer. Could I have prayed elsewhere? Sure. Would our Lord have heard me? Of course! Was it special to me because it was in the quiet of the church? Yes. The church itself was an aid to my devotion. Sitting in the church it was easier for me to meditate on our pastor and his needs, the needs of the congregation, and even to pray and mediate on the Sacrifice that Jesus made for me and for them. After praying for some time, being the mortal human that I am…or perhaps, just not advanced enough in prayer….I found my mind wandering. 

At this point it is necessary to describe the floor plan of my church. In the front and center of our Church is the tabernacle where the Eucharist is kept in order to be able to take Holy Communion to those who are unable to come to church. That is the central focus of the church and the architecture (early 20th century) supports that. You can see behind the Tabernacle though and there is a walkway that goes behind it that connects the vesting rooms (see diagram). In the wall behind the Tabernacle is a niche on each side and in those niches are statues. From the spot where I customarily sit, you can see a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the really crummy pictures I scanned from our church directory, you can see a little arch of brown behind the ficus (yes really) on the left. That’s where the statue is. The other niche, which I cannot see from my favorite spot, is one of Mary.

X marks my favorite place to kneel and pray

1. Tabernacle

2. Sacred Heart of Jesus statue

3. Mary statue

4. Altar

5. Ambo (pulpit) 

6 Presider’s chair

(Sorry that it’s such a bad picture…it came from our church directory.)

Back to my mind wandering. Today there were no plants or flowers of any kind in the church because it is the start of Lent which is a “desert time” liturgically; thus, no flowers or plants. This had the effect of making the statue more visible that it is customarily. As I knelt in prayer and my mind wandered, I caught sight of the statue and I began to think about the origin of the image portrayed in the statue. I thought about St. Mary Margaret Alocoque and how she had been written off as insane and a kook for most of her life. She was horribly maligned by her fellow sisters in her convent. I thought about France at the time she was living and how the awesome holiness of the Lord had been emphasized almost to the exclusion of the Love and Mercy of Our Lord. I thought about how her perseverance in spreading the message of the Mercy of Our Lord was a gift to me. That without her, I might not have the privilege of praying in church in preparation for receiving Holy Communion as a lay person on an ordinary day. (Holy Communion was received only infrequently by the laity at the time because of their sense of unworthiness.) These and many other thoughts went through my mind as I knelt in prayer before that statue. And as a result of that meditation I returned again to my prayer to Our Lord in thanksgiving for those who persevered in obedience and for the Precious Gift of His Mercy that welcomes me even when I am unworthy. Was I praying TO the statue? No. Was I as unmistakably close to the statue as the people in the picture? No. But I was close enough that if someone had seen my gaze they might have snapped MY picture and put it on the internet as further proof of Catholic-statue-worshipping. It was an aid to my devotion. Period. It was an aid both to meditation and prayer. Could I have been closer and done the same thing and had it look more “incriminating”? Probably. Does the distance from the statue matter in this case? If I am 10 yards from the statue am I not bowing to it, but I am if I am 5 feet from it but using it in the SAME WAY as if I was 10 yards away? 50 yards?

Later that day while I was waiting for a service to finish, I occupied myself by pulling weeds in the church’s landscaping. At one point, I was down on my knees in front of a statue of St. Francis looking for weeds. I looked up and realized where I was and almost looked around to see if anyone had a camera. Fortunately, I was all by myself and there were no Jesus-is-Lord spies there. I also took a few minutes to think about the life of St. Francis, the joy with which he served Our Lord and what He taught us about appreciating God’s creation. Again, a statue served as a visual reminder that drew me into meditation about God’s gifts to us.

Now contrast this aid to devotion to my behavior at another time. Our church has an Adoration chapel. What that means is that the Eucharist is exposed in a monstrance 24 hours/day. People at our church take turns spending an hour before the Eucharist in prayer and Adoration. We do this in response to the scripture in which Jesus asks His disciples, “Could you spend an hour with me in prayer?” On Tuesday mornings, I rise in the wee hours of the morning and head to church. As soon as the person I relieve leaves, I veil myself, remove my shoes, and I prostrate myself in Adoration and Worship before the Blessed Sacrament. (I wait until the other person leaves because I really don’t want anyone thinking that I do this for show.) There is no question in my mind what I am doing. This isn’t an aid to Worship. This isn’t to help me think about Our Lord.  This is Worship. It isn’t the primary act of worship which is the Mass but in a spiritual way, I unite this time that I spend in Adoration with the Mass.

Now I am not a Hebrew scholar but I do know that there is more than one word for “bow” used in the OT and since I DO bow in worship and it looks different both in my heart and in my body, I can’t help but think that the Hebrews were lucky enough to have a word for “bow” that looks like what my “bow” does in Adoration and one that also translates “bow” that looks like what happened in the church and in the garden. I have had people that I trust tell me that my understanding is correct.

That’s just my experience and indicative of nothing except how my understanding of scripture plays out in my devotional life. If that leaves me open to the charge of intellectual duplicity because it “looks like worship but isn’t” well then I stand convicted. It is my opinion that it “looks like worship” because of the very different understanding of worship that exists outside of the Catholic Church.  For the Catholic the central and most important act of worship is what Jesus declared it to be in the New Covenant at the Last Supper. Catholics believe that during the Mass we enter into the eternal worship of heaven itself.  It is not hyperbole when a Catholic compares marital intimacy to receiving Holy Communion. Holy Communion is the Sacrament that renews the New Covenant just as marital intimacy renews the marital covenant.

That leads me to my next part. There has been a lot of discussion [on that forum] about this picture:

This picture was originally found on The Sacred Immaculate Heart of Satan page on the Jesus-is-Lord website.

In conjunction with these verses:

Exodus 20:4-5 “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation”

Deuteronomy 5: 8-10  “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

So first, I would like to ask the reader if they pray in their closet? Well why not? Sacred Scripture says CLEARLY….in no uncertain terms, from the words of our Savior himself….

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”

But you say….the context of the passage in Matthew is that we aren’t supposed to do things for show! It didn’t mean that you should literally go into a closet.

Yes I say, and the context of the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy is that we should not worship things that are not the Creator of the Universe. And bowing in and of itself, is not worship.

And so we are left with a debate like all the other debates that have split Christianity into countless and counting denominations. Each Christian reserving unto him or herself the right to interpret Sacred Scripture as seems best to that individual. Is that what Jesus intended? Should scripture be interpreted by an individual or within a community? Which community? By whose authority? How does a new Christian determine which church is the correct church if they have not developed appropriate spiritual maturity?

And where did this book that we call the Bible come from? It did not drop from Mount Sinai leather bound with gilt edges. The first books of the New Testament were not even written for decades after Pentecost…..the Apostles guided the first Christians you say….well that’s true. But were there more than 12 communities of Christians? What did the communities without Apostles do? Did the Apostles lay hands on some and bestow them with the same kind of authority? If they did, why doesn’t that authority continue to this day? And who has it? Who picked the books of the Bible? When? The New Testament canon was not finalized until almost 400 AD. That’s over 300 years without a Bible. Some churches before that preach as scripture from books that did not make the New Testament canon, and some churches refused to teach as scripture from some books that did not make it into the canon. Most churches were able to afford only a few of the books anyway. How did Christians pass on the faith in the centuries that followed the adoption of the canon without their own copies of the Bible (that they couldn’t read since most were illiterate)? And why is it that the same people who had the authority to set the canon that is accepted by so many Protestants without question, not have the authority to explain what it means?

The canon set at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) was set by the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the men that were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to establish the canon that remains to this day not only believed that using visual aids to devotion was acceptable, they also believed that same Church rightly reserved to herself the authority to provide a definitive interpretation of those same scriptures.

Someone on that homeschooling forum I hang out on has asked “Just reading through this thread and wondering….Why is important for RCCs to believe that Mary is sinless?  I don’t agree with that I’m not really looking for an argument about whether she is or now, but just wondering why that is important?  It doesn’t change who Jesus is if she had sin, does it?

It wouldn’t be the first time the Church had affirmed the nature of Jesus by what it teaches about His mother. The reason the Catholic church teaches that she is the Mother of God is because of his fully human and fully divine nature. The two are directly tied. The Nestorian heresy was fought with by adding the phrase, “Mother of God” into common Catholic speech and into a prayer known as the “Angelic Salutation”….although that prayer is more commonly known as the “Hail Mary.”

Part of the scriptural basis for teaching that Mary was immaculately conceived is that Jesus is that as the Bread of Life, He is the fulfillment of Manna. As the Eternal High Priest, He is the fulfillment of the Aaronic priesthood and He is the fulfillment of the law. Each of these items was symbolized by something that was in the old Ark of the Covenant. Manna, the rod of Aaron, and the stone tablets of the law were all in the ol Arl of the Covenant. The Ark of the New Covenant (according to Catholic teaching is Mary). The old ark was made of incorruptible (that is it’s symbolism) accacia wood, the new ark was made (as a gift of God not by any merit of hers) of incorrupted flesh. Just as the Catholic Church asks “If Mary isn’t the “Mother of God”, why not? Is it because Jesus isn’t divine?” Remember that the Catholic Church’s memory is long and diverse, very often she has learned that those who would deny the divinity of Christ or His bodily resurrection or some other essential part of Christological doctrine, start by dissing His mother. (Of course, not always.) In parallel, in the eyes of Catholic theology if Mary is not the new Ark of the Covenent, why not? What part of the contents of the old ark was not fulfilled in her Son, Jesus?

So I think that’s why (in part) in the eyes of Catholic theology, to deny the Immaculate Conception is to call into question the nature of Jesus.

As for why God chose to give her that gift? I don’t think that there is any official reason for that. Certainly there is the perspective that many have being that Jesus needed to occupy a sinless vessel but it’s one that I buy. I don’t think Jesus needed to occupy a sinless vessel at all….after all He seems to be able to embrace and love US in our sinful state. On the other hand in my reflection and meditation on this mystery (and believe me, as a convert to Catholicism, I’ve had to do a LOT of reflection and meditation) has led me to the Old Testament. Time and again, we see that to come into the unveiled presence of God was deadly. Look what happened to those who touched the old Ark of the Covenant. To see the face of God was to die! Even in the New Testament, we see that eating and drinking the Body and Blood of our Lord unworthily causes dam*ation (death). Imagine then, carrying the Living God in your body…the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity within your body. How could she have borne it without the gift that God gave her?

No I think that the gift of the Immaculate Conception was to equip Mary for the task for which she was chosen.

You might be interested in these resources. Here is the declaration of the Immaculate Conception  and here an article about the dogma that you might find interesting.

This is an exchange that took place on the Protestant homeschooling forum I hang out on. I wanted it for my files and well…this blog is pretty much it. ~ RNW

I would be very interested in seeing where this was the case. I do know that there were some priests who said things like this to the faithful in their care. Just like I know that some priests TODAY tell their faithful that abortion is ok. That some priests are not faithful to the magisterium. Some on purpose. Some through a misguided zealousness. Is not relevant to the official teaching of the church. In fact, church history and current church practice shows a deep reverance for Sacred Scripture.

Well I guess we will have to disagree here. To assert on one hand (by your editorial comment) that a particular passage says that only Popes and Bishops etc. can read the Sacred Scripture but fail to note that the CCC specifically exhorts the faithful to read scripture regularly seems a bit out of context to me.

Did you have a question? Did you perhaps mean to say something like this “Red Neck Woman, I am sorry but I have never seen that in scripture. Could you please show me from scripture why you make this assertion?”

Yes the HS lives within the Believer. But as St. Paul shows that the HS does not gift each of us equally. I think both of us have seen examples where sin or pride or arrogance stop the ears of someone to the action of the HS.

I have highlighted the particular passage that I am referring to.

Yep. We call this Apostolic Authority. Because the Apostles called out leaders, who handed off authority to the next, who prayfully considered the next……

Again…did you have a question? We perhaps you trying to ask me “RNW, I do not see why you believe from scripture that God works through the Sacraments? Would you please show me where, in your understanding, you see evidence for that?”

Would you please show me the scripture reference that contains the table of contents. The NT canon is itself a Tradition. The same men that were so inspired by God as to determine what was and what was not Holy Scripture also taught that the Body and Blood were not symbolic, that there was Apostolic Authority, etc. Why do you accept their “Table of Contents” but not what they said it meant?

And as [another Catholic poster] said in response, I say that the scriptural footnotes are an integral part of the CCC. That you have decided that the CCC must speak for itself without scripture is your conclusion.

1 Corinthians 11:2 ….hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you

We don’t force it to say anything other than we believe Jesus expressed His love and care for the children.

No they did not. The mark of the OT covenant was circumcision. I believe that baptism replaces circumcision in the NT.

This is precisely why Tradition is important. Even though the Bible specifically says there is more that isn’t recorded in the Bible, you deny that historical record outside of Scripture could be helpful in a deeper clearer understanding of Scripture. Scripture says that Baptism is important….we disagree on how important. It specifically records Baptism of households (Acts 16) but doesn’t specifically record whether or not infants were baptised at the same time. Scripture doesn’t explicitly say infants were or were baptised. But if we look at the historical record we can see that St. Augustine specifically teaches that infants are to be baptised. Those close in time and teaching to the Apostles themselves illuminate those places where Sacred Scripture wasn’t specific.

So your quibble with us is that we referenced the wrong Scripture?!

I was just wondering how the Scriptures, that you agree are all God-breathed, can be equalled in any way by the traditions of man.

Because God breathed into man too.

Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

John 20:21-22 (Jesus) said to them [the apostles] again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.

What an odd thing to be recorded in the Gospel. Jesus breathed on the apostles. But if you look at that passage carefully and understand that the same Divine action that God performed in Genesis to bring forth human life, is the same action God perfomed on the Apostles with some very interesting words. As the Father sent me (on a mission to provide for the forgiveness of sins and bring forth life) SO I SEND YOU. (Wow) And then to confirm what He is saying, He spells it out in so many words. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. (Double wow)

Sacred Scripture isn’t the only thing God-breathed.