Icons, candles, incense and images. Creating an atomosphere? for what?

[Thekla]

What role did the Pope of Rome play in ending this?

He disagreed with the emperor, per my recollection.

 

[BrendanMark]

From Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Session (September 24, 787) -- Three bishops, Basilius of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, and Theodosius of Amorium begged for pardon for the heresy of iconoclasm.

Second Session (September 26, 787) -- Papal legates read the letters of Pope Hadrian asking for agreement with veneration of images, to which question the bishops of the council answered: "We follow, we receive, we admit".

Third Session (September 28, 787) -- Other bishops having made their abjuration, were received into the council.

Fourth Session (October 1, 787) -- Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Exodus 25:19 sqq.; Numbers 7:89; Hebrews 9:5 sqq.; Ezekiel 41:18, and Genesis 31:34, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers;[1] the authority of the latter was decisive.

Fifth Session (October 4, 787) -- It was shown that the iconoclast heresy came originally from Jews, Saracens, and Manicheans.

Sixth Session (October 6, 787) -- The definition of the pseudo-Seventh council (754) was read and condemned.

Seventh Session (October 13, 787) -- The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images:

It was determined that "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

Eighth Session (October 23, 787) -- The last session was held in Constantinople at the Magnaura Palace. The Empress Irene and her son were present and they signed the document.

The clear distinction between the adoration offered to God, and that accorded to the images may well be looked upon as a result of the iconoclastic reform. However sculpture in the round was condemned as "sensual". The twenty-two canons[5] drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened.

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Adrian I, who had it translated (the translation Anastasius later replaced with a better one).

 

[Standing Up]

He disagreed with the emperor, per my recollection.

Didn't the Pope get the EC (Nicea II, 7th EC) in place? Didn't the Patriarch acknowledge the Pope's primacy? IOW, w/out the Pope, there'd be no relics in the buildings.

 

[Thekla]

Didn't the Pope get the EC (Nicea II, 7th EC) in place? Didn't the Patriarch acknowledge the Pope's primacy? IOW, w/out the Pope, there'd be no relics in the buildings.

You can find and study the history of this issue online.

 

[Standing Up]

You can find and study the history of this issue online.

Sure, but what is your recollection of the issue? What was the interaction between the Patriarch and Pope over the issue? How was it resolved?

 

[Standing Up]

From Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-snip-
The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Adrian I, who had it translated (the translation Anastasius later replaced with a better one).

Do you know of the relationship between the Patriarch and Pope and how the EC came about?

 

[Standing Up]

I don't understand what you mean by this (ie what is your point) ..



Jesus did go to the Temple, as is demonstrated in the Scriptures; I just wanted to correct your misapprehension on this matter.

Originally Posted by Philothei

these are NOT directly dealind with saying go ahead read the scripture... it is CHrsit participating...Just like Christ participted in the temple with incense ....

​

That's the quote I responded to. Jesus would not have been allowed in the Holy Place or Holy of Holies where the incense was. That He went by there or turned over the money-changer tables is not even a question. But, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. He wouldn't have anything to do with incense in the temple Holy Place.

Now, Philothei has stated she believes the Levitical system is maintained by EO. So, I understand why she might think that Jesus was able to enter the Holy Place. But the fact is He could not.

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by Philothei

these are NOT directly dealind with saying go ahead read the scripture... it is CHrsit participating...Just like Christ participted in the temple with incense ....

​

That's the quote I responded to. Jesus would not have been allowed in the Holy Place or Holy of Holies where the incense was. That He went by there or turned over the money-changer tables is not even a question. But, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. He wouldn't have anything to do with incense in the temple Holy Place.

Now, Philothei has stated she believes the Levitical system is maintained by EO. So, I understand why she might think that Jesus was able to enter the Holy Place. But the fact is He could not.

SU it does not matter where exactly Jesus went...Still when he prayed he went to the temple that is what it matters . They used incense no question and he was there...I think we are splitting hair here...

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Ok. So we've estabished that you PRAY (give praise/worship) to physically dead people that may or may not be believers (sorry I dont accept that you are capable of knowing the hearts of men).

The definition of "pray" is "praise/worship"?

pray

Etymology
Middle English preien < Old French preier, (French prier) < Latin precari, from prex, precis, "a prayer, a request"; akin to Sanskrit prach "to ask", Old English frignan, fricgan, German fragen, Dutch vragen. Confer deprecate, imprecate, precarious.

Pronunciation
enPR: pr&#257;, IPA: /pre&#618;/, SAMPA: /preI/

Verb
to pray (third-person singular simple present prays, present participle praying, simple past and past participle prayed)

1. To petition or solicit help from a supernatural or higher being.
2. To humbly beg a person for aid or their time.
3. (religion, Christianity, Judaism) to talk to God for any reason.

"Pray" means "to ask (for help)".

The Mass is the highest prayer of the Church. There are four ends to the Mass:

The Israelites, who worshipped the true God and offered Him sacrifices because He made known to them by revelation that they should do so, had four kinds of sacrifice. They offered one for sin, another in thanksgiving for benefits received, another as an act of worship, and another to beg God's blessing. It is just for these four ends or objects we offer up the one Christian sacrifice of the holy Mass.

Thus we can extrapolate that there are really four ends to prayer -- atonement for sin, thanksgiving, adoration and petition.

Do we confess our sins to the saints? Yes, but only indirectly:

I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, ["and to you, brethren" or "and to you, Father"]: that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed: through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, ["and you, brethren" or "and you, Father"], to pray for me to the Lord our God.

(at Mass, the "and to you, brethren" or "Father" is added [depending on whether it is said by the priest or the faithful], also sometimes various saints are added [such as St. Benedict when I say the Benedictine Office])

Do we offer prayers of thanksgiving to the saints? Not really. I suppose if you received a miracle by reason of the intercession of some saint, you may thank them, but not in any formal way.

Do we offer prayers of adoration or worship to the saints? No.

Do we petition the saints? Yes, this is the primary purpose of prayers to the saints -- to ask them to pray for us. The end of the Confiteor posted above says that:

Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, ["and you, brethren" or "and you, Father"], to pray for me to the Lord our God.

or in the Hail, Mary:

Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

So prayers to the saints involve asking them to pray on our behalf for God to forgive us and to ask them to pray on our behalf for God to help us in other ways.

At no point, that I am are of, does "worship/adoration" enter into the picture with regards to the saints. What are you thinking of when you say that? Do you have examples?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Originally Posted by Philothei

these are NOT directly dealind with saying go ahead read the scripture... it is CHrsit participating...Just like Christ participted in the temple with incense ....

​

That's the quote I responded to. Jesus would not have been allowed in the Holy Place or Holy of Holies where the incense was. That He went by there or turned over the money-changer tables is not even a question. But, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. He wouldn't have anything to do with incense in the temple Holy Place.

Now, Philothei has stated she believes the Levitical system is maintained by EO. So, I understand why she might think that Jesus was able to enter the Holy Place. But the fact is He could not.

That went right by me! Yeah...the incense was in the holy place, wasnt it? Specifically offered by the order of Aaron and Jesus sprang from the tribe Judah of which tribe Moses said nothing in respects to the preisthood and high priest to the order of Melchizedek, I never looked at it in respects to the incense that way

Gees, Its like 2 am and I have one of tommorrow's study now. I sorta love little stuff like this (weird I know, but I do). Now I gotta look at his more closely... its stuff you know overall but those little details sorta get overlooked sometimes.

Hit the books in the morn

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Becasue YOU DONT KNOW who is in heaven with God and who is DEAD in SIN.

So when you pray to physically dead members of your church they MAY be in heaven alive in Christ or they MAY be dead.

Unless you are equal to God and can know the hearts of men? Are you?

Indefectibility of the Church proves that canonization of the saints is infallible -- every canonized saint is in Heaven.

I have the quote from St. Thomas explaining, but only in Latin. I did a translation a while ago, it's probably on here somewhere.

In "Quodlibet IX", Q. 8, St. Thomas addresses the question: "Utrum omnes sancti qui sunt per Ecclesiam canonizati, sint in gloria, vel aliqui eorum in Inferno" -- "Whether all saints who have been canonized by the Church are in glory [Heaven] or if some may be in Hell." (my translation)

His primary argument (s.c. 1) is:

In Ecclesia non potest esse error damnabilis. Sed hic esset error damnabilis, si veneraretur tamquam sanctus qui fuit peccator, quia aliqui scientes peccata eius, crederent hoc esse falsum; et si ita contigerit, possent ad errorem perduci. Ergo Ecclesia in talibus errare non potest.

In the Church it is not possible for there to be a damnable error. But this would be a damnable error, if someone is venerated as a saint who has been a sinner, because some knowing their sin, believed that which is false. And if it happens they may have been led into error. Therefore, it is not possible for the Church to err in such matters.

Thus, St. Thomas argues, the Church cannot error in matters of canonizations because to do so would lead people astray, because they would imitate the sins and errors of the would-be "saints". Thus, the canonization of saints is infallible because of the indefectibility of the Church.

Such an error could be either in regards to faith or morals. If St. Bob is a manifest heretic -- say, he denied the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus (ala Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong) -- people would see that and say that if Bob believes that and is in Heaven (for that is the implication of the word "saint"), then it's perfectly fine to believe that even against the teachings of the Church and so many souls may be lost that way (because it is not okay).

This error could also be in regards to morals. I like to pick on homosexuals because I myself am a homosexual. So say, St. Bob lived with his lover John and this was public knowledge. People might see that and say that if Bob is actively homosexual and is in Heaven, then it is perfectly fine to engage in homosexual acts, even against the teachings of the Church and so many souls may be lost that way (because it is not okay).

We do not know, of course, if someone is in Hell. Say Bob was indeed a heretic and indeed lived with his male lover, but he repented on his deathbed and became a Catholic and confessed his heretofore unrepentant sins, and soul was whisked away to Heaven (or at least to Purgatory first and then to Heaven). We on earth may not have any way of knowing that. Yet in no case should we lift up Bob to the altars of the Church and present him as an exceptional model of Christian living!

Thus, the Church in modern times (over the past several hundred years) very thoroughly investigates an individual who has been proposed for sainthood. All of their writings and correspondences are poured over, their lives picked apart, to look for problems. Until recently, the final process was done in a courtroom-type setting, with one side in favor of the canonization and the other arguing why the individual should not be canonized. The person whose role it was to argue against the canonization was termed the "devil's advocate" (which is where the popular term comes from "to play the devil's advocate"), in analogy to the devil's role in the Book of Job who argued that Job wasn't really a true friend of God. A person also has to have at least two miracles (usually medically-unexplainable healings) attributed to their intercession (at least one before the stage of beatification and at least one following it, in order to be canonized).


But the final test is the fact that they are canonized. My priest said that it makes no sense that some Traditionalists continue to criticize Josemaría Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei -- which is not looked upon favorably by many Traditionalists because of its strong association with neo-conservativism and John Paul II) because the debate is over, canonizations are infallible and Josemaría is in Heaven, case closed.

Of course, if you don't believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, you won't believe that it is indefectible and therefore you won't believe that its canonizations are infallible. But at least now you know why we believe that they are -- it is only indirectly.

 

[Rocky1960]

What I think is funny is there was a counsel in 754 outlawing icons and images only to have another in 787 reversing that one. The unchanging church LOL!

Yikes. We want to be part of that

That is a distortion of the truth. According to Wikipedia there was no "council" outlawing icons and images. Wikipedia says that the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, as commonly understood, are:

1. First Council of Nicaea (325)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

What happened in 754 apparently was that Constantine the 5th convened a "synod" which declared that images of Jesus misrepresented him and that images of saints were idols. That was a "synod", not a "counclil". The actual 787 council of Nicaea apparently corrected that local synod's error.

I see that I have another person to add to my ever growing list of people who feel the need present misinformation to bolster their positions. What bothers me as well is that this was so easy to figure out. All I had to do was type early council into Google there it was, nice as you please.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

So if the church brings in new diogmas you will follow them?

Of course. But remember that there are no new dogmas. They may formally define something that is already part of the faith, but no one can add to the faith. I am just speaking about the human element. We don't hang on every word of the pope.

A saint according to who?

According to God

Do you in the RCC pray to repose members of your church too?

Why wouldn't we? You are the ones who are saying it is wrong to ask people to pray for you because you believe you are so independent that you don't need the Church, you don't need other people to pray for you, you don't need 2000 years of Christian history and millions of Christians because you have it all figured out for yourself. We, on the other hand, know that we need all the prayer we can get and that we rely on Christ's Church and all of Heaven to live each day at a time and to gain Heaven.

Are they all official saints too?

No, the vast majority of people in Heaven will remain unknown to us until we get there.

After this I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands: And they cried with a loud voice, saying: Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb.

That doesn't mean that we don't ask the prayers of those who we do know are in Heaven specifically and all of Heaven generally.

This is really quite ammusing. Sticking to biblical doctrine is bad? LOL.

Minimalism is deadly. The idea that we should only do the bare minimum commanded so that we can squeak by is an affront to God. Those who try to do the bare minimum don't.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Apparently not.

Most people have never heard of it and are unaware that Christ and the Apostles taught anything like this.

Forgive me...

Thats coz its not in scripture.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

This article may be of some help regarding this. Also note that these prayers were most likely translated from either greek, slavonic, or arabic, and often the original meanings are sometimes not conveyed properly into english.

Saint Worship?

Thanks but I'll wait for someone to explain it on the board. In the light of day.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Thats what the RCC tell their disciples in order to get them to perform unbiblical practices.

I'll stick to scripture. It's safe.

Anyway, the only thing we have to DO to be saved is believe in Christ.

Minimum requirement:



Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

But of course peeps like to add a buch of WORKS of their OWN on top of that.

Dr. Strangelove:

Anyway, the only thing we have to DO to be saved is believe in Christ.

St. James:

Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

You also have to obey.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

I shall leave the distinction between a merely intellectual assent, a natural "belief", and the actual Theological virtue of Faith, a supernatural belief, for another thread perhaps.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

I am curious: What exactly is true Biblical Christianity?

Keep seeking the truth Rocky, and you'll find it sir.

I'll start you off:

5 Solas

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Dr. Strangelove:

St. James:

You also have to obey.

I shall leave the distinction between a merely intellectual assent, a natural "belief", and the actual Theological virtue of Faith, a supernatural belief, for another thread perhaps.

The understanding of Christ as the risen Son of God and His finished work on the cross is the faith needed. The devils dont have that. God gives it only to His sheep.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

No it is not sir. Necromancy is conjuring up the dead in order to divine some special knowledge. That is the context of those old testament passages.

These people are not conjuring up the dead in order to divine some special knowledge, they are making requests and hoping that God will be the one that ultimately answers.

You are about the 3rd or 4th person I have encountered here who seems to purposely distort the scriptures and distort other peoples' positions. I find that most distasteful. I also find it to be a bit of a one-way street among certain groups and I cannot understand why I am seeing such a pattern.

Question: "What does the Bible say about praying to / speaking to the dead?"

Answer: Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in the Bible. Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to the Lord.” The story of Saul consulting a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead Samuel resulted in his death “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Clearly, God has declared that such things are not to be done.

Consider the characteristics of God. God is omnipresent—everywhere at once—and is capable of hearing every prayer in the world (Psalm 139:7-12). A human being, on the other hand, does not possess this attribute. Also, God is the only one with the power to answer prayer. In this regard, God is omnipotent—all powerful (Revelation 19:6). Certainly this is an attribute a human being—dead or alive—does not possess. Finally, God is omniscient—He knows everything (Psalm 147:4-5). Even before we pray, God knows our genuine needs and knows them better than we do. Not only does He know our needs, but He answers our prayers according to His perfect will.

So, in order for a dead person to receive prayers, the dead individual has to hear the prayer, possess the power to answer it, and know how to answer it in a way that is best for the individual praying. Only God hears and answers prayer because of His perfect essence. This perfect essence includes what some theologians call “immanence.” Immanence is the doctrine that affirms God is directly involved with the affairs of mankind (1 Timothy 6:14-15), which includes answering prayer.

Even after a person dies, God is still involved with that person and his destination. Hebrews 9:27 says so: “…Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” If a person dies in Christ, he goes to heaven to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-9, especially verse 8); if a person dies in his sin, he goes to hell, and eventually everyone in hell will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15).

A person suffering in agony will not be able to hear or answer a prayer, nor will a person who is living in heavenly bliss with God. If we pray to someone and they are in eternal agony, should we expect them to be able to hear and answer our prayers? Likewise, a person in heaven has no concern for that which is on earth, so should we expect him to be concerned for my temporal problems? God has provided His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). Since Jesus Christ is the mediator between the two parties, we can go through Jesus to God. Since we can go through the Son of God, why would we want to go through a sinful dead individual, especially when doing so risks the wrath of God?

What does the Bible say about praying to / speaking to the dead?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

And please prove the mummification ...

I guess my proof is that all flesh deteriorates in this temporal world unless some mummification is applied.

And your not seriously telling me that your guys in boxes arn't deteriorating are you?;

Is this what our glorified bodies will look like?