[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cicachan / imouto / kocsog / nofap / ponerpg / startrek / turul ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 471c091ffdbda26⋯.png (160.56 KB, 245x255, 49:51, j.png)

402b01 No.560113

"A distinction without a difference

In fact, the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with impunity to angels and the dead. For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God. Indeed, they worship both God and the saints indiscriminately, except that, when they are pressed, they wriggle out with the excuse that they keep unimpaired for God what is due him because they leave latria to him. But since the thing itself, not the word, is in question, who can permit them to make light of this most important of all matters? But to pass over this also their distinction in the end boils down to this: they render honor [cultus] to God alone, but undergo servitude [servitium] for the others. For latreia among the Greeks means the same thing as cultus among the Latins; douleia properly signifies servitus; and yet in Scripture this distinction is sometimes blurred. But suppose we concede it to be unvarying. Then we must inquire what both words mean:douleia is servitude;latreia, honor. Now no one doubts that it is greater to be enslaved than to honor. For it would very often be hard for you to be enslaved to one whom you were not unwilling to honor. Thus it would be unequal dealing to assign to the saints what is greater and leave to God what is lesser. Yet many of the old writers used this distinction. What, then, if all perceive that it is not only inept but entirely worthless? [1/2]

402b01 No.560114

File: 97034061ea79118⋯.png (198.82 KB, 599x400, 599:400, j (2).png)

Honoring images is dishonor to God

Let us drop fine distinctions and examine the thing itself. When Paul reminds the Galatians what they were like before they were illumined in the knowledge of God, he says that "they exhibited dulia toward beings that by nature were no gods" [Gal. 4:8 p.]. When he does not call it latria, is their superstition for this reason excusable? Assuredly, by labeling that perverse superstition dulia, he condemns it no less than if he had used the word "latria." And when Christ fends off Satan's insult with this shield, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God'" [Matt. 4:10], it is not a question of the word "latria." For Satan demanded of him only a reverent kneeling. Likewise, when John was rebuked by the angel because he fell down on his knees before him [Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9], we ought not to suppose John to be so senseless as to wish to transfer to an angel the honor due God alone. But because any reverential act that has been joined with religion cannot but savor of something divine, he could not have "knelt" to the angel without detracting from God's glory. Indeed, we often read that men were worshiped: but such an act was, so to speak, a civil honor. Religion, however, has another concern; as soon as it has been joined with an act of reverence, it carries the profanation of divine honor along with it. We can see this in Cornelius [Acts 10:25]. He had not advanced so ill in godliness as not to pay God alone the highest reverence. Therefore, when he prostrated himself before Peter, undoubtedly he did not intend to worship Peter in place of God, yet Peter earnestly forbade him to do it. Why, unless because men never so articulately discern between the honoring of God and of creatures without indiscriminately transferring to the creature what belonged to God? Thus, if we wish to have one God, we should remember that we must not pluck away even a particle of his glory and that he must retain what is his own. Therefore Zechariah, when he speaks of the restoration of the church, eloquently asserts not only that "God will be one" but also that "his name will be one" [Zech. 14:9 p.], in order no doubt that he may have nothing in common with idols. What sort of reverence God requires will be seen elsewhere in its proper place. For by his law it pleases him to prescribe for men what is good and right, and thus to hold them to a sure standard that no one may take leave to contrive any sort of worship he pleases. But because it is not expedient to burden my readers by mingling many things, I do not yet touch on that matter. It is enough to recognize that, whenever any observances of piety are transferred to some one other than the sole God, sacrilege occurs. And first, indeed, superstition contrived divine honors either for the sun and the stars or for idols. Then followed ambition, which by adorning mortals with the spoils of God, dared profane everything sacred. And although there remained the principle of worshiping a supreme Being, it was a common custom to offer sacrifices indiscriminately to tutelary divinities, lesser gods, or dead heroes. So inclined are we to lapse into this error that what God rigorously reserves for himself alone we distribute among a great throng." (Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.) [2/2]


9639d2 No.560115

sorry Dr. Calvin, but you sound pretty (((uncharitable)))


f22733 No.560116

File: e611c73574ad90d⋯.png (3.3 KB, 400x400, 1:1, badBait.png)

>>560113

> For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God.


402b01 No.560117

>>560116

he makes a solid case for this, with scriptural support in the second section.


5dd771 No.560130

>walk into Calvinist church

>say hi to another person

>get thrown out for idolatry

Muh distinction without a difference


d8b136 No.560131

File: 0e39b53d748df16⋯.jpg (69.99 KB, 431x450, 431:450, 1435009840357.jpg)

>>560113

>One man's opinion on Dulia and Latria


2e420b No.560132

File: d0292135ce269e6⋯.jpg (306.46 KB, 1713x1597, 1713:1597, IMG_2444.JPG)

>>560130

>Catholics conflate statues with living people

Really activated my almonds


402b01 No.560139

>>560131

yeah, i'm not propping him up as some infallible authority, i'm not even calvinist.

i just think the argument he lays out here is sound.

i would actually like to read a rebuttal to this passage of the institutes, it's been around for almost 500 years so i'm sure some heavyweight catholic/orthodox intellectual has tackled it since then.

i'm not sure where to look.


177f57 No.560148

>>560139

I came to Calvin's argument without even reading Calvin. Latria and dulia has bothered me since I considered joining the Catholic church and is strongest reason I have not.

I have asked numerous Catholics and not received a valid counter-argument except: it's different because it's a different word.

The word "worship" in the original Greek came from "to bow down." I would argue that, as Christians, we cannot submit to anything but God, even in form. Bows to political dignitaries should not be allowed. Christians should only ever acknowledge other humans as equal - submission of any kind is exclusively for God alone.

Dulia or "servitude" is a form of submission. Any form of genuflecting, bowing, or otherwise lowering the head is a form of submission that the Christian should reserve solely for the Lord our God - to remind us every day, every time, who it is we serve- not men, but the Holy Spirit.


89f243 No.560154

>>560148

>Bows to political dignitaries should not be allowed.

t. has never read the Bible


f22733 No.560160

>>560155

>What if bowing is part of one's culture? Like how the Japanese do?

This can't be done because it steals glory from the sovereign God who is sovereign, and because of his sovereignty stealing of glory from him is unacceptable, because He is sovereign


89f243 No.560162

File: 0f29c5e0edbf0cb⋯.jpg (33.63 KB, 657x527, 657:527, 880.jpg)

“See, the smell of my son

is as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed!

May God give you of the dew of heaven

and of the fatness of the earth

and plenty of grain and wine.

Let peoples serve you,

and nations bow down to you.

Be lord over your brothers,

and may your mother's sons bow down to you.

Cursed be everyone who curses you,

and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”

(Genesis 27:27-29)

So, according to you protties Isaac wanted his son to be worshiped?


9639d2 No.560168

>>560162

>Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you

is defined by

>Be lord over your brothers

It's talking about bowing down to him as a ruler, not as an object of religious devotion


89f243 No.560171

File: 430ad186a9e884b⋯.jpeg (69.29 KB, 699x485, 699:485, 430.jpeg)

>>560168

>It's talking about bowing down to him as a ruler, not as an object of religious devotion

It's bowing down nonetheless. If dulia can be rendered unto persons other than God, then it's clear how it doesn't take away from what must be rendered solely to Him.


f22733 No.560174

>>560171

No no no, this is different because reasons


9639d2 No.560175

>>560171

>If dulia can be rendered unto persons other than God

It can't be. Dulia is specifically a religious term, it does not apply to secular matters.

>>560174

No, it's different because such actions as bowing the knee are permitted only to those who are in authority. This is to reflect proper submission to those who rule, which keeps the peace, maintains order, protects the rights of men and ultimately, upholds the law. However, the only spiritual authority of Christians is God (Matt 23:8-10), and religious praise is worship (Rev 5:8-14).


89f243 No.560177

File: 8cd571c4f2c57db⋯.png (174.11 KB, 680x935, 8:11, f1e.png)

>>560175

>It can't be. Dulia is specifically a religious term, it does not apply to secular matters.

But, you told me the passage I posted earlier concerned secular matters…

>καί δουλεύω σύ ἔθνος καί προςκυνέω σύ ἄρχων καί γίγνομαι κύριος ὁ ἀδελφός σύ καί προςκυνέω σύ ὁ υἱός ὁ πατήρ σύ ὁ καταἀράομαι σύ ἐπικατάρατος ὁ δέ εὐλογέω σύ εὐλογέω

>May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you."


9639d2 No.560180

>>560177

>δουλεύω

We used the English word dulia, not the Greek word δουλεύω. The Greek word has more meanings, but the English word is exclusively theological.


89f243 No.560181

File: 89c943ab03bec26⋯.jpg (39.9 KB, 680x564, 170:141, e36.jpg)

>>560180

>but the English word is exclusively theological.

Let's say we were having the same conversation, but in the Greek language. What word would you use instead of "dulia"?


9639d2 No.560183

>>560181

Probably δουλεύω. I didn't say it doesn't mean dulia, I said it also means things other than dulia.


7f71e0 No.560184

>>560114

> Religion, however, has another concern; as soon as it has been joined with an act of reverence, it carries the profanation of divine honor along with it. We can see this in Cornelius [Acts 10:25]. He had not advanced so ill in godliness as not to pay God alone the highest reverence. Therefore, when he prostrated himself before Peter, undoubtedly he did not intend to worship Peter in place of God, yet Peter earnestly forbade him to do it. Why, unless because men never so articulately discern between the honoring of God and of creatures without indiscriminately transferring to the creature what belonged to God? Thus, if we wish to have one God, we should remember that we must not pluck away even a particle of his glory and that he must retain what is his own.

*Cough*

Abraham worshipped the sons of Emmor, impious men in ignorance of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb. (Gen. 23.7; Acts 7.16) Jacob worshipped his brother Esau and Pharao, the Egyptian, but on the point of his staff.* (Gen 33.3) He worshipped, he did not adore. Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel of God; (Jos. 5.14)

Abraham worshipped the impious men who sold him the cave, and bent his knee to the ground, yet did not worship them as gods. Jacob praised Pharao, an impious idolator, yet not as God, and he fell down at the feet of Esau, yet did not worship him as God. And again, How does God order us to worship the earth and mountains? "Exalt the Lord your God and worship Him upon His holy mountain, and adore His footstool," (Ps. 99.9, 5) that is, the earth. For "heaven is My throne," He says, "and the earth My footstool." (Is. 66.1) How was it that Moses worshipped Jothor, an idolator, (Ex. 18.7) and Daniel, Nabuchodonosor? How can you reproach me because I honour those who honour God and show Him service? Tell me, is it not fitting to worship the saints, rather than to throw stones at them as you do? Is it not right to worship them, rather than to attack them, and to fling your benefactors into the mire? If you loved God, you would be ready to honour His servants also. And if the bones of the just are unclean, why were the bones of Jacob and [45] Joseph brought with all honour from Egypt? (Gen. 50.5ff, Ex. 13.19) How was it that a dead man arose again on touching the bones of Eliseus? (II Kgs. 13.21) If God works wonders through bones, it is evident that He can work them through images, and stones, and many other things, as in the case of Eliseus, who gave his staff to his servant, saying, "With this go and raise from the dead the son of the Sunamitess." (II Kgs. 4.29) With his staff Moses chastised Pharao, parted the waters, struck the rock, and drew forth the stream. And Solomon said, "Blessed is the wood by which justice cometh." (Wis. 14.7) Eliseus took iron out of the Jordan with a piece of wood. (II Kgs. 6.4-7) And again, the wood is the wood of life, and the wood of Sabec, that is, of remission. Moses humbled the serpent with wood and saved the people. (Num. 21.9) The blossoming rod in the tabernacle confirmed the priesthood of Aaron. (Num. 17.8)

We have seen that prophets worshipped angels, and men, and kings, and the impious, and even a staff. David says, "And you adore His footstool." (Ps. 99.5) Isaias, speaking in God's name, says, "The heavens are my throne, and the earth my footstool." (Is. 66.1) Now, it is evident to everyone that the heavens and the earth are created things. Moses, too, and Aaron with all the people adored the work of hands. St Paul, the golden grasshopper* of the Church, says in his Epistle to the Hebrews, "But Christ being come, a high priest of the good [31] things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hand," that is "not of this creation." And, again, "For Jesus is not entered into the Holies made by hands, the patterns of the true; but into heaven itself." (Heb. 9.11, 24) Thus the former holy things, the tabernacle, and everything within it, were made by hands, and no one denies that they were adored.


89f243 No.560185

File: ed220c8978c0196⋯.jpeg (50.77 KB, 657x527, 657:527, 8a9.jpeg)

>>560183

>I said it also means things other than dulia.

And what are these other things?


9639d2 No.560193

>>560185

See >>560175

>>560184

Would it be licit to offer to demons the worship of dulia?


9a7c09 No.560231

File: 246149443659058⋯.jpg (16.54 KB, 236x336, 59:84, On martyrs.jpg)

>Protestant fathers going against Early Church fathers

>Ever a good idea


177f57 No.560239

>>560154

Quote the verse you're thinking of or you're just being a punk.

No old testament either, the new testament is called such because that's what we live under now. If you want a counter-example to "worship your God and serve him only" find it out of Jesus's mouth in the NT.


177f57 No.560240

>>560155

>What if bowing is part of one's culture? Like how the Japanese do?

I'm only a partially-reformed weaboo so I know how you feel but point still stands. We're making an example for Christ.

Remember, their politely is bound in levels of submission based on social status (how low you bow) bows still mean submission to the Japanese, they just regularly submit to one another.


177f57 No.560241

>>560162

This occurred before even the law was handed down…


177f57 No.560244

>>560231

How easy it would be to be corrupted in some things in a couple of centuries. Look at the wild swings in Christianity 1500-1700.

If it were the apostles, I see your point. And I agree with the early church fathers on most things but, here, it definitively appears they've let pagan elements creep in against the scriptures. And your only argument is to a fallible man whose grandfather's grandfather wasn't even alive when Christ was.

Not saying St. Jerome isn't smarter and wiser than me, but I can still point out a single point that he got wrong and can appeal to both the spirit and letter of the scriptures to support my position.


c66ce5 No.560251

>>560231

But Jerome agrees with the protestant view that we should not worship relics here.


744370 No.560252

The false assumption here is that you are even bowing down to the person in the statue. The fact you think you are makes this worship, because you have to assume the person is present in the graven image and really omnipresent and able to answer our prayers, which is the definition of idolatry. When you're really honoring the work of your own hands and your own version of whatever you tried to represent in that idol.

Psalm 65:1-2

Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed.

O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.

Psalm 5:2-3

Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.


7f71e0 No.560253

>>560193

>Would it be licit to offer to demons the worship of dulia?

Why would you bow to a demon, unless you're a satanist?

Honoring angels, men and object have justifications(both religious and secular) and biblical precedents.


89f243 No.560256

>>560193

How do I know that's the right definition of dulia and not a definition that you made up so you have a convenient clause that supports your argument.


89f243 No.560261

>>560239

see >>560162

>No old testament either, the new testament is called such because that's what we live under now.

LOL you really haven't read the bible.


9639d2 No.560269

>>560253

>Why would you bow to a demon

So now dulia is bowing? Ok, when saints rise from the dead, you may bow to them out of respect. No kneeling though

>>560256

>How do I know that's the right definition of dulia and not a definition that you made up so you have a convenient clause that supports your argument

Do you apply this skeptic paranoia to all words with multiple definitions?


89f243 No.560273

>>560269

>Do you apply this skeptic paranoia to all words with multiple definitions?

Skepticism is not paranoia, even less so when you call out the person on their source and they fail to provide you any whilst calling you paranoiac.


f22733 No.560274

>>560251

In actual English speach Latria is interchangeable with worship and dulia with reverence or honor. The push for Latria and dulia to be two distinct things both called worship in English is incredibly forced and does not work with the English words. If that quote is ok with Protestants then so should Orthodox practices of veneration


3e9841 No.560275

>>560132

>Humans aren't immortal and dont reside with God.


9639d2 No.560278

>>560273

I'll take that as a no, in which case this is special pleading and may be dismissed.


01fb1b No.560363

File: 9890e395092d197⋯.jpg (951.55 KB, 684x766, 342:383, Calvin'd.jpg)


01fb1b No.560372

>>560160

Fucking hell, its just a fucking bow


e1c558 No.560431

>>560239

>Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another

Titus 3:1-3

Paul is pretty clear on submitting to the political authorities. Also see Rom 13:1-7. We as Christians pay respects and submit to the powers that be, just as Christ submitted both to the traditions of the Temple and the judgement of Pilate. Through the writings of the Fathers as well (see the Rule of St. Benedict) complete surrender to one's superior was essential in most religious orders.


744370 No.560435

>>560431

>complete surrender to one's superior was essential in most religious orders.

>>560252


e1c558 No.560437

>>560435

How do you read Paul's call to submission then? It seems like he would not be one to advocate idolatry


2db3a2 No.560439

>>560231

Do you call men of this sort idolaters? I do not deny, that all of us who believe in Christ have passed from the error of idolatry. For we are not born Christians, but become Christians by being born again. And because we formerly worshipped idols, does it follow that we ought not now to worship God lest we seem to pay like honour to Him and to idols? In the one case respect was paid to idols, and therefore the ceremony is to be abhorred; in the other the martyrs are venerated, and the same ceremony is therefore to be allowed. Throughout the whole Eastern Church, even when there are no relics of the martyrs…

Jerome's Against Vigilantius.


744370 No.560440

>>560437

>It seems like he would not be one to advocate idolatry

It depends. Are you defending the use of graven images to direct prayer and "latria" to? Or merely defending obeying Romans 13 to the extent one avoids idolatry?


e1c558 No.560446

>>560440

There is a distinction between the honor due to rulers and the honor due to God. Similarly there is a distinction between the honor due to the Saints and that due to God. To conflate them is idolatry, but I don't believe distinguishing them is. Don't the Saints deserve being honored and called blessed? The angel of the Lord asked John specifically to write that:

>And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Rev. 19:9


744370 No.560453

>>560446

Acts 10:26

But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

>Don't the Saints deserve being honored and called blessed?

But again, what does this mean? To call them blessed or to sit and chant for hours contra Matthew 6:7? This term "honoring" in this case is just a cover for idolatry because the person in question is not omnipresent nor is residing in the idols which they have built with their hands. And if it was not appropriate or suitable to fall at Peter's feet in person, why would it be to do so with a statue of him that was made with human hands wherein Peter himself is not residing? You realize millions of people are kissing the toes of manmade statues and acting like its the temple of God. Are they really even rendering honor to the intended person or merely to the work of someone's hand as it says? Is not this an act of rebelling against the commandment and defense of the pride in doing so?


402b01 No.560455

>>560439

>Against Vigilantius.

i just read this earlier, jerome was a funny guy.

>Vigilantius, or, more correctly, Dormitantius,

(not sure what point you're trying to make posting that passage, but) if you're posting this because you think jerome disagrees with the roman catholic practice of venerating saints/images/relics, you're gravely mistaken.

he goes into a frothy rage defending it, starts talking about centaurs and pelicans.

i wish some works of vigilantius survived, i'd like to read what he had to say.


9a7c09 No.560531

File: 660c9acfee64d93⋯.jpg (62.27 KB, 592x547, 592:547, carry thy cross.jpg)

>>560244

The thing that makes early church fathers legitimate is that their teachings and interpretations have a higher chance of being correct because they were taught the things that the apostles themselves passed on. Why would I ever want to listen to newly invented interpretations that are barely 500 years old at best when there are interpretations that are from people who were taught by the apostles/disciples of the apostles available to me?

>but I can still point out a single point that he got wrong and can appeal to both the spirit and letter of the scriptures to support my position.

What authority makes your interpretation more valid?


744370 No.560535

>>560531

>interpretations

Does the Holy Spirit exist or not? It says in 2 Peter 1:20 that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. So therefore we shouldn't actually be relying on fallible interpretations at all. Those aren't our final authority. We should call on the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth when we read the word, as it says He will in John 16:13. There is no "less likely" or "more likely" about it then, only certainty in both the word of God and the ability of God to open our understanding. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is given to those individuals that believe, as the New Testament says, and it is through His intervention that we can arrive at the true and correct understanding of the word of God, again as the NT flat out says. To say this isn't possible is simply denial of these facts: John 14:16-17, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27, 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:13-14.

>What authority makes your interpretation more valid?

If you have the Holy Spirit with you, you will see the truth in a correct argument regardless of who gives it, and the highest authority is always the word of God so if anyone contradicts it, we will know. That's why you will always find a good argument refers to Scripture alone, and the only reason I didn't paste the whole references in this post is because there were too many, and it would take too much space, so I just gave you the above citations if you really wanted to know; that's the only way you're going to see our point of view on this though, is by the scriptural justification.

Not some fallible interpretation of another man.


9639d2 No.560561

>>560531

>their teachings and interpretations have a higher chance of being correct because they were taught the things that the apostles themselves passed on

How do you know? They were centuries after the apostles, there is a great deal of room for corruption in such a time period. Should we concede that the interpretations of rabbis have a higher chance of being correct because they were taught the things Moses himself passed on?

>Why would I ever want to listen to newly invented interpretations that are barely 500 years old

My answer is don't, listen to the 2,000 year old bible, which is older than the fathers.

>What authority makes your interpretation more valid?

The consistency it has with the text.

>>560446

>Similarly there is a distinction between the honor due to the Saints and that due to God.

Are you really willing to say there is honor and glory which is not rightly due to God?


2db3a2 No.560582

>>560455

I'm pointing out that the reason why worshiping of saints as Jerome is the tendency of idolatry, but he thinks the object of worship makes the difference thus is okay in his mind and that, in no offense to Jerome, is flawed logic. The issue is that worship ("venerated" if you want to twist words around) is solely designated to God, otherwise it becomes idolatry.


8eac77 No.560681

>>560239

>no old testament

Don't be a marcionist. We are only freed from ceremonial law like circumcision and dietary laws because these are mentioned as completed in the New Testament (and indeed, as Acts shows, only with great resistance.)


6e8a8c No.560686

>Are you really willing to say there is honor and glory which is not rightly due to God?

The saints are part of the Body of Christ, which is why we venerate them. God isn't limited to the acts that he performed as part of the incarnation, he is alive today and works through his mystical body, of which the saints are limbs of this body. All veneration of Christ's body is praising him regardless.

For example, if you consider the power of God helping you to create music - did the incarnation of Christ have anything to do with this? No, but through his mystical body he did, and when you venerate for example the patron Saint of Music, all you do is recognize the power of God working through his body.


9639d2 No.560697

>>560686

>The saints are part of the Body of Christ, which is why we venerate them

Do you venerate men on earth? Does God work miracles through them?

>All veneration of Christ's body is praising him regardless

Why could you not praise Christ by venerating demons?

>when you venerate for example the patron Saint of Music, all you do is recognize the power of God working through his body

Would I not achieve the same by venerating Apollo?


e35dbb No.563834

>>560113

And he sent word to Moses, saying: I Jethro thy kinsman come to thee, and thy wife, and thy two sons with her. And he went out to meet his kinsman, and worshipped and kissed him: and they saluted one another with words of peace. And when he was come into the tent, Moses told his kinsman all that the Lord had done to Pharao, and the Egyptians, in favour of Israel: and all the labour which had befallen them in the journey, and that the Lord had delivered them.

- Exodus XVIII:vi ff.

And David also rose up after him: and going out of the cave cried after Saul, saying: My lord the king. And Saul looked behind him: and David bowing himself down to the ground, worshipped, And said to Saul: Why dost thou hear the words of men that say David seeketh thy hurt?

- I Kings XXIV:ix

And when Miphiboseth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come to David, he fell on his face and worshipped. And David said: Miphiboseth? And he answered: Behold thy servant.

- II Kings IX:vi

And when the woman of Thecua was come in to the king, she fell before him upon the ground, and worshipped, and said: Save me, O king.

- II Kings XIV:iv

Bethsabee bowed herself, and worshipped the king. And the king said to her: What is thy will?

- III Kings I:xvi

Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king sleepeth with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders. As she was yet speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet came. And they told the king, saying: Nathan the prophet is here. And when he was come in before the king, and had worshipped, bowing down to the ground, Nathan said: My lord O king, hast thou said: Let Adonias reign after me, and let him sit upon my throne?

- III Kings I:xxi ff.

And Bethsabee bowing with her face to the earth worshipped the king, saying: May my lord David live for ever.

- III Kings I:xxxi

Then king Solomon sent, and brought him out from the altar: and going in he worshipped king Solomon: and Solomon said to him: Go to thy house.

- III Kings I:liii

And the sons of the prophets at Jericho, who were over against him, seeing it said: The spirit of Elias hath rested upon Eliseus. And coming to meet him, they worshipped him, falling to the ground.

- IV Kings II:xv

And after the death of Joiada, the princes of Juda went in, and worshipped the king: and he was soothed by their services and hearkened to them.

- II Paralipomenon XXIV:xvii


402b01 No.563862

>>563834

>copypasted straight from reddit

cool, calvin already addressed the point raoulduke25 was trying to make in the second section though ( >>560114 )

>But because any reverential act that has been joined with religion cannot but savor of something divine, he could not have "knelt" to the angel without detracting from God's glory.

>Indeed, we often read that men were worshiped: but such an act was, so to speak, a civil honor.

>Religion, however, has another concern; as soon as it has been joined with an act of reverence, it carries the profanation of divine honor along with it.

>We can see this in Cornelius [Acts 10:25]. He had not advanced so ill in godliness as not to pay God alone the highest reverence.

>Therefore, when he prostrated himself before Peter, undoubtedly he did not intend to worship Peter in place of God, yet Peter earnestly forbade him to do it.

>Why, unless because men never so articulately discern between the honoring of God and of creatures without indiscriminately transferring to the creature what belonged to God?

>Thus, if we wish to have one God, we should remember that we must not pluck away even a particle of his glory and that he must retain what is his own.


4de775 No.564018

File: 52a4ebed0d96719⋯.jpg (538.21 KB, 1920x1300, 96:65, d105e8a432b98ed52f26a6374c….jpg)

>>560193

>Would it be licit to offer to demons the worship of dulia?

No, because we don't respect demons. we spit on them




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cicachan / imouto / kocsog / nofap / ponerpg / startrek / turul ]