Quick rant

[Anastasia13]

Rrrr... I disagree with what Cappie said in a Q & A thing he copied and pasted in the recent cross one.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

so what is you opinion on the matter of protestantism and cruxifixes?

[azaelia]

I don't see anything wrong with it. What specifically don't you agree with?

[Anastasia13]

I will reply later. I must go to school. Personally, I really don't fit his description of us.

~Your token die-hard protestant.

[Didacus]

Pio Nono doesn't want me to spit, even though its not a sin.

[Brother Adam]

Yeah, that is kindof a poor answer. "The real reason"... hm...I disagree too.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Aug 22 2005, 09:29 AM']I don't see anything wrong with it. What specifically don't you agree with?
[right][snapback]694145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where should I post the answer to that?

Edited August 23, 2005 by Light and Truth

[morostheos]

It's not very charitable to Protestants either....

[Fides_et_Ratio]

It's not cappie's words...

It's from the Q&A off of James Akin's site-- take issue with him.
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q028.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q028.htm[/url]

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Aug 22 2005, 08:45 PM']It's not cappie's words...

It's from the Q&A off of James Akin's site-- take issue with him.
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q028.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q028.htm[/url]
[right][snapback]695032[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I shall e-mail him.

May I ask you oppinion of some of what I say before I e-mail?

Edited August 23, 2005 by Light and Truth

[RC_]

Go ahead.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

You could post your issues with his response in this thread if you wanted?


Apologetics, can occasionally get somewhat "snappy" (or "heated").... which is sad, and I hope that changes soon... there is a lot of animosity oftentimes because when people discuss differences in belief, they tend to come across as judgmental--and no one likes to be judged.

[Anastasia13]

[quote]Q: A Protestant told me that we shouldn't have crucifixes, but bare crosses, because we are to worship Jesus risen, not Jesus crucified, and because he is no longer on the cross. What do you think of this argument?

A: It is difficult to take this position seriously because it is so patently absurd. The arguments used to support it are not the real reason the use of crucifixes is opposed. The arguments offered above are just rationalizations which distract from the real reason; they are a smoke screen of post-Reformation rhetoric.

The real reason Protestants oppose crucifixes is that the crucifix is a three-dimensional image of the crucifixion-including Jesus. Protestants have no problem with two-dimensional images of the crucifixion. If you read their children's Bible-story books, you will find lots of two-dimensional pictures of the crucifixion. But if one goes from two to three dimensions, suddenly it becomes an unallowable image of Jesus-an idol which people are going to worship, thinking it is the real Jesus who is in heaven. Give me a break!

Having said that, let us address the arguments offered above for the anti-crucifix position. First, there is the issue of when to worship Jesus-when he is being crucified or when he is risen-this is a total red herring. Jesus is to be worshipped both when he is being crucified and when he is risen. The reason is that he is God both times. He must be worshipped all through the Incarnation-before, during, and after the crucifixion. The arrogant boast "We worship Jesus risen, not crucified" is, taken literally, an expression of a grossly defective Christology.

It also fails to give proper significance to the event of the crucifixion. It was not the resurrection which paid the price of our sins. Christ paid the price for those on the cross. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians: "When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:1-2, RSV). The message of the crucifixion of Christ, which paid the price for our sins and paved the way for Christ's resurrection, was the center of Paul's message, and it is simply arrogant posturing that has a "holier-than-Paul" attitude to suggest that the focus should not be kept on the crucifixion and that we should only honor Jesus in his raised form and not also honor the memory of what he did on the cross.

In fact, remembering and commemorating the crucifixion is the whole purpose of having a cross in the first place. Christians-Protestants included-do not look at crosses to remind themselves that Jesus is no longer there. They look at crosses to remind themselves of what Jesus did there. It is thus entirely natural to depict Jesus as being there when we wish to remember what he did on the cross, as illustrated by all the two-dimensional representations of the crucifixion that one finds in Protestant books. If it wasn't for the knee-jerk, paranoid reaction they often feel around three-dimensional images, Protestants themselves would never make three-dimensional crosses without a corpus for any reason except convenience-the same reason Catholics sometimes have corpus-less crosses.

As to the ridiculous argument that Jesus is not on the cross now, several things may be pointed out. First, if you want to worship Jesus where he is now then you ought not be looking at a cross at all. Second, the cross on which Jesus died is not standing now, so you are automatically looking at a representation of a cross that stood in the past-again distancing the remembrance from where Jesus is now. And third, there probably never was a time when Jesus' cross stood without his body on it.

The sequence went one of two ways. Either the whole cross was laid on the ground, Jesus was nailed to it, it was raised, and then when Jesus was dead the whole cross was taken down so that his body might be removed-meaning that nothing was left standing--or the sequence went like this: Jesus, on the ground, was nailed to the crossbeam, which was then raised and hung on the vertical shaft and his feet were nailed, then, after he was dead, the crossbeam was unhung from the cross and his body brought down like that, leaving only the vertical shaft of the cross standing.

We sometimes see artistic representations of Jesus being taken down from a standing cross, but those are archetypal, not historical images. Thus Jesus' cross probably never stood without his body on it after he had been crucified (especially since Joseph of Arimathea kept it as it had been standing in his garden, where his tomb was [cf. John 19:38-41, Matt. 27:59-60], and it was afterward venerated by the early Christians). Thus, if one has a cross that lacks a corpus for any reason other than convenience, one is representing and "remembering" a circumstance that probably never happened. [/quote]

As to the initial argument in question, what is important is not the risen or crucified part. That was important for those to happen, but we are to worship Jesus and I know not of any time when He was ever only a man. He was before, during, and after Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That argument itself would give reason to think that we should not have crosses at all, after all, we are to worship Jesus, not the cross. That person probably struggled with not seeing things like that as an idol and maybe that is that person’s weakness. We all those things we struggle with. What makes it an idol is what you do with it, whether you worship the item or not. Either is ok, as long as it does not take your focus off of our Lord, the living Jesus Christ.

Protestants oppose crucifixes is that the crucifix is a three-dimensional image of the crucifixion-including Jesus? As best I recall, I have never heard that in my life. I say this as someone who has spent her entire life in different Protestant churches and met other Christians who went to other churches. Some might believe that, but I doubt that the majority do. We have three dimensional crosses. I’ve even seen three dimensional ones where we took a piece of paper and nailed it to a large cross. We have a three-dimensional Jesus is almost every nativity I have seen. So it’s something specific about the crucifixion. While some may see that as an object that is worshipped and that may have been part of why the tradition of crosses rather than crucifixes began, it also shows a difference in emphasis in worship and theology. I suspect this is what perpetuates the differences in tradition over crucifixes.

It’s not a simple matter that we fail to give proper significance to the crucifixion, but we emphasize in our theology the completion of the crucifixion and resurrection together.
1 Corinthians 15:14-17 NAB
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty (too) is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.* 18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Note from: [url="http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm"]http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out...bible/index.htm[/url]
* [17-18] The consequences for the Corinthians are grave: both forgiveness of sins and salvation are an illusion, despite their strong convictions about both. Unless Christ is risen, their faith does not save.

To Protestants, the plain cross is more a reminder of the complete crucifixion and resurrection. It is both a reminder that Jesus paid the price for us and that He was resurrected and over came death for us. In our timeline, both have happened. While historically the cross may not have hung without Jesus on it, it's a reminder that that has happened already in it's completion. I also see the cross as a reminder that I belong to Him now.

“If it wasn't for the knee-jerk, paranoid reaction they often feel around three-dimensional images,”
Umm, that is kind of a stereotype. Otherwise, I am not Catholic enough to have this little gold crucifix in my room stuck to my wall.

“Protestants themselves would never make three-dimensional crosses without a corpus for any reason except convenience”
Please see above.

Edited August 27, 2005 by Light and Truth

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i don't agree.

[Anastasia13]

With what and why if I may ask?

(Not that I think whether it is one way or the other is of great importance.)

Edited August 27, 2005 by Light and Truth

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]To Protestants, the plain cross is more a reminder of the complete crucifixion and resurrection. It is both a reminder that Jesus paid the price for us and that He was resurrected and over came death for us. In our timeline, both have happened. While historically the cross may not have hung without Jesus on it, it's a reminder that that has happened already in it's completion. I also see the cross as a reminder that I belong to Him now.[/quote]


The Mass still goes on everyday. its the Cruxifiction.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 27 2005, 04:16 PM']The Mass still goes on everyday. its the Cruxifiction.
[right][snapback]701858[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Everyday you literally drive knew nails into Jesus Christ so that He physically dies?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

ill talk to you about this later but its not everyday. its the same as the cruxifiction its just right in front of us. its not everyday he dies agian. he only dies once. i can't explain this very well

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

As one would guess by the words the priest uses, he is offering to God the sacrifice which is Christ. It is a holy sacrifice because Christ is holy, and it is a living sacrifice because Christ is alive as he is being offered on the altar; he does not die again. Pope Paul VI's Credo of the People of God states, "We believe that . . . the bread and wine consecrated by the priest [are] changed into the Body and Blood of Christ now enthroned in glory in heaven."

The reason for the offering is so that Christ's once-for-all offering on the cross might "be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit" (CCC 1366, citing the Council of Trent; cf. CCC 1356-1381). "As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God" (CCC 1414).

When Christ said "Do this in remembrance of me," the "this" to which he referred was the celebration of the Eucharist, including consecration and consumption. This is why Paul explains the remark by saying, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:25).

This proclamation of the Lord's death has sacrificial overtones. It is not simply a way of getting us to remember Christ; it re-presents to God what he did and prompts the Father's merciful remembrance of us. This is the function of a memorial offering (Num. 10:10). In view of this fact, the Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias translates the phrase "Do this is remembrance of me" (that is, remember me to your benefit; cf. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 237-255). The Greek phrase can also be translated "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice" ("Quick Questions," This Rock, September 1993).

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

he Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better translated "Offer this as my memorial offering."

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).



The Didache


"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).



Pope Clement I


"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).



Ignatius of Antioch


"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).



Justin Martyr


"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).



Irenaeus


"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).



Serapion


"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).



Cyril of Jerusalem


"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 [A.D. 350]).



Gregory Nazianzen


"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword" (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]).



Ambrose of Milan


"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).



John Chrysostom


"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).

"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).

"‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).

"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid., 24:2).

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).



Augustine


"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).



Sechnall of Ireland


"[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]).



Fulgentius of Ruspe


"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only-begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious" (The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).