[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.19413430 [View]
File: 369 KB, 1600x1067, 1621546614249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19413430

>>19412515
>>19412864
>>19413001

I want to start off by saying that I am absolutely sympathetic to Protestants who think we worship saints, because a Catholic (or Orthodox) church is extremely shocking to somebody who grew up with a typical Protestant church.
I can just imagine them thinking "Why are there pictures of regular humans in a place that is supposed to be for the worship of God alone?". Without having the proper context, I absolutely see how one could think it is idolatry.

The main root of the misunderstanding, as I see it, is twofold: the first is the distinction between honour/veneration and worship, and the second is whether or not the saints can hear our prayers.

First, then is the distinction between worship and veneration/honour. Honour is a type of respect due to all mankind, as well as to God.
The Greek word for this concept (timé), is multi-faceted, such as when one is commanded to honour their father and mother, or where Peter says "Honour [timesate] all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour [timate] the king."
Paul says in 1 Timothy to "Honor [tima] the widows", yet we are also called to "honor [timosi] the Son, even as they honor [timosi] the Father".
So we have a clear precedent in Scripture for there being a respect or honour paid not only to the Holy Trinity, but to our parents, widows, the king, and "all men".
Thus, having established this distinction, the simplest form of the argument for honouring/veneration of the saints would be an "a fortiori" argument:
We are called by the apostles to honour all men, and we are also called to honour God. Now, it is clear that we are to honour God more than the average man.
So if there are gradations in the amount of honour which is to be paid, it logically follows that we should give more honour to the blessed Virgin Mary, than to a child rapist. For Mary bore God the Son in her very womb, and all generations shall call her blessed, how much more should we honour her than a child rapist?
Now, the idea is clear - we honour God at the top of the hierarchy in a unique way, and infinitely below him are the saints and angels in heaven who have earned their crown and robe, and below them are our brothers and sisters here on earth.

We do NOT, under any circumstances, worship saints. Worship, also called latria, is due to God alone. You can see this in such passages as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve [latreuseis]." (Luke 4:8)
Latria is a kind of exclusive worship - it is "service", in the sense of being exclusively yoked to a master. If you give latria to anybody but God, you are committing idolatry. Catholics will never, ever, give latria to any saint, even the blessed Virgin Mary. We respect and venerate the saints very highly, but NEVER worship them.

So, hopefully you now see the distinction between honour and worship, and how that plays into the Catholic perspective on saints.

(1/3?)

>> No.18720774 [View]
File: 369 KB, 1600x1067, 1621546614249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18720774

>>18720606
>more generally, what even happens in heaven. Maybe this is a naive question but I can't imagine that spending the rest of eternity just existing and contemplating God to be more blissful than actual action.
I can only suggest to read the book of Revelation. It elaborates in great detail what will be going on in heaven, and on Earth - there will be a liturgy in heaven, for example. In the Gospels, we can gleam insights as well; such as there being "many mansions" (John 14:2), and "treasures in heaven" (Matthew 16:20) indicating that there is a type of temporal existence which extends beyond the typical Eastern vision of a boundless oneness-type feeling, and is somewhat similar to our existence here, but perfected.

>I thought Christianity was deeply dualistic.
I should have specified - I meant cosmological dualism, which is rejected by ancient apostolic Christianity (eg. Catholicism and EO), but was a feature of some gnostic sects.

>Jesus' message was originally intended to the Jews, and when he saw they didn't want to listen, he took back their superiority over other people and tribes, right?
Jesus knew all of this beforehand (being God), but had to testify to the Jews knowing the vast majority would reject Him and conspire to have Him tortured and killed, because it was prophesied that the Messiah would begin preaching His message to the Jews. The apostles are the ones who brought the message of Christ to the world: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

>The problem of evil still filters me, you probably shouldn't waste your time trying to give me an answer to it though because I've read dozens of threads about it and am still none the wiser.
Makes sense. I will only briefly say that, as I'm sure you have heard, evil has no existence in and of itself (but is only a privation of Good), and that just punishment for an action contrary to divine law is not evil, but right and just (especially when God is the judge). Job 38 in and of itself is a profound text to meditate on.

>> No.18283182 [View]
File: 369 KB, 1600x1067, The-Dispute-of-the-Holy-Sacrament,-Raphael,-1511-1600x1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18283182

Didn't Paul address this question already in the actual Bible? Read this excerpt from Romans chapter 2, and remember of course that when Paul says "the Law" he's referring to the Old Testament Mosaic law.

There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]