http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/experts-claim-theyve-found-the-holy-grail-in-spanish-basilica/
NOBODY expected a Spanish basilica!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Cathedral
One of the supposed Holy Chalices in the world is revered in one of this cathedral's chapels; this chalice has been defended as the true Holy Grail; indeed, most Christian historians all over the world declare that all their evidence points to this Valencian chalice as the most likely candidate for being the authentic cup used at the Last Supper. It was the official papal chalice for many popes, and has been used by many others, most recently by Pope Benedict XVI, on July 9, 2006. This chalice dates from the 1st century, and was given to the cathedral by king Alfonso V of Aragon in 1436.
Note this is a different chalice than the one currently in the news.
Last year, it emerged S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler allegedly visited Spain during the war because he believed the grail was at the Montserrat Abbey near Barcelona.
It was a failed expedition, but one that inspired the blockbuster hit Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, in which Harrison Ford treks to find the revered vessel.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593336/Jewel-encrusted-goblet-gathering-dust-tiny-Spanish-museum-touched-lips-Jesus-fact-HOLY-GRAIL-say-two-historians-book-prove-it.html#ixzz2xn9CSreO
I think I'll file this as this year's pre-Easter archeological news - it seems to be mandatory.
Fiction.
What does Ben Witherington have to say about this?
It doesn't phase me one way or the other. Maybe it is, maybe not. If it is, great. If not no big deal (to me). I bet this spurs a round of "lets test the cup for Jesus DNA" stories on NatGeo, and discovery, as well as a series of documentaries chronicling how the church suppressed Pseudepigraphal documents that should have been included in the cannon except for that exclusivism of the evil church. I suppose at least it triggers conversations.
It must be April 1 again.
As Ben Witherington III notes in the preceding article, no early Christian writings indicate that the cup used at the Last Supper survived or was preserved as a relic.
------------------
Many scholars are convinced that The Holy Chalice of Valencia is the Holy Grail, celebrated in medieval legends as it was venerated by monks in the secluded Monastery of San Juan de la Peña, built into a rocky outcropping of the Spanish Pyrenees. The tradition of Aragón has always insisted that the flaming agate cup of the Holy Chalice was sent to Spain by St. Laurence, the glorious Spaniard martyred on a gridiron during the Valerian persecution in Rome in 258 AD.Now there is new evidence: A sixth-century manuscript written in Latin by St. Donato, an Augustinian monk who founded a monastery in the area of Valencia, provides never-before-published details about Laurence, born in Valencia but destined for Italy, where he became treasurer and deacon of the Catholic Church under Pope Sixtus II. It explicitly mentions the details surrounding the transfer of the Holy Cup of the Last Supper to Spain.
--------------------------
I've not found an earlier reference - others may have better info.
of Classics and Religious Studies,University of Iowa"> This has been an incredibly popular endeavor to try to find something that Jesus touched.
This has been an incredibly popular endeavor to try to find something that Jesus touched.
Let me have an insatiable desire to be involved in lives and ministries that Jesus touches today.
When working with news articles the correct exegetical technique is check the date and if it's April 1, you question the facts much more rigour.
Hitler seems to have tried to find and seize a number of relics associated with Christ's Passion -- and not for pious purposes. He seems to have been convinced that if he got hold of all the right ones, he'd get supernatural powers of some kind.
MJ, since this thread is already OT, that film briefly showed something I wondered about a couple of weeks ago: the pope giving the ashes on the crown of the head, not the forehead. That's something I've never seen before. The other priests seemed to do it both ways. Is that some kind of Dominican tradition, given that it was in Santa Sabina?
of Classics and Religious Studies,University of Iowa"> This has been an incredibly popular endeavor to try to find something that Jesus touched. Let me have an insatiable desire to be involved in lives and ministries that Jesus touches today.
Beautiful, Lee! *smile* Thank You! Psalm 29:11
I've never really understood the whole "relic thing". Neither have I ever understood the whole "let's visit the Holy Land" thing, even though my parents met in Jerusalem in 1945! For me the thing that matters is having a living relationship with the Living Lord Jesus. Maranatha!
Every blessing
Alan
Notice the article was posted on April 1.
I've never really understood the whole "relic thing".
I suspect this is a partial consideration for why the ark was "lost" prior to the veil being torn. Having the holy of holies be empty is probably a more helpful phenomenon than having a tangible object for people to fixate upon, regardless of any conceptual relation to the heavenlies.
[:O]
Cf. 2 Kings 18.4
Hezekiah destroys a relic!
Cf. 2 Kings 18.4 Hezekiah destroys a relic!
On the other side of the coin however, I love archaeological finds like these and many others which serve as fascinating demonstrations of the veracity of scripture.
I. Am. Conflicted.
I wonder how many shrubs it cost them along the way.
As long as they were nice. And not too expensive.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/50.4 is more interesting to me...although also likely not "the grail" We have no Biblical data... stone, clay, metal, wood. all maybe a possible first century cup. The large upper room may point to metal since it was an obviously wealthier home. Was it saved, I have no idea, did also catch the blood from him on the cross, this seems doubtful. But thankfully my faith is in the Blood, every chalice that has held the concreted wine is the true grail in my mind. Original, to me as I would suspect with most here it is a pointless search. LOL Sorry just had a cute perhaps blasphemous thought... If we had had it perhaps Mary was clutching it in her arms as she died, and returned it to Jesus when she was assumed bodily into heaven (for those who take that to be the Blessed Mother of God's fate).
-Dan
Acts 19:11-12. The idea is that when God sanctifies, he sanctifies the whole person, the body as well as the soul. And through the body other things.
For me the thing that matters is having a living relationship with the Living Lord Jesus.
For me too, but we are physical beings, living our lives through our bodies and our senses. People who love tend to want photographs and mementoes, like to kiss and hug, and to visit places that are important to the beloved. To me, the Evangelical fear of the physical seems uncomfortably close to gnosticism, and tempts me to wonder how real the Incarnation really is for you.
To me, Jesus is first of all the Bridegroom. I don't remember right now if you're married, but most guys here are so I presume you are too. I imagine that you expect your "living relationship" with your wife to be somewhat more than spiritual; that, in fact, without the physical, you'd be sorely tempted not to consider it very "living" any more. From my experience, and my reading of the Bible, Jesus is no different: He longs to physically become one body with His bride. To me, what modern Evangelicals call "accepting Jesus" is just the engagement. Baptism is the wedding. The Eucharist is the consummation. I can't really fathom a "living relationship" with Jesus that doesn't include the Eucharist. That's where He makes me fruitful, in so far as I am at all. Without It I'm sterile, trying to do on my own what only He can give.
The Old Covenant was very physical. I believe Christ meant the New Covenant to be as well. In fact, I believe He meant it to be more physical: the consummation of what in the Old was only a promise and a prophesy. It's when the physical loses the connection to Christ that we risk becoming idolaters: pop stars, football teams, money, sex, even our spouses and our children. Much more dangerous than relics or icons, that are only venerated because they point to Christ.
why the ark was "lost" prior to the veil being torn.
Lost or merely not in Jerusalem?[:P]
However, it was on the TV world news earlier ... as well as in several newspapers. So the fact that this article was published on April 1 has no special significance. On the other hand, until I see the details of the evidence I am taking this as the annual pre-Easter shocking news development i.e. with about 2000 pounds of salt.
well stated fgh.
I've never really understood the whole "relic thing". Acts 19:11-12. The idea is that when God sanctifies, he sanctifies the whole person, the body as well as the soul. And through the body other things. For me the thing that matters is having a living relationship with the Living Lord Jesus. For me too, but we are physical beings, living our lives through our bodies and our senses. People who love tend to want photographs and mementoes, like to kiss and hug, and to visit places that are important to the beloved. To me, the Evangelical fear of the physical seems uncomfortably close to gnosticism, and tempts me to wonder how real the Incarnation really is for you. To me, Jesus is first of all the Bridegroom. I don't remember right now if you're married, but most guys here are so I presume you are too. I imagine that you expect your "living relationship" with your wife to be somewhat more than spiritual; that, in fact, without the physical, you'd be sorely tempted not to consider it very "living" any more. From my experience, and my reading of the Bible, Jesus is no different: He longs to physically become one body with His bride. To me, what modern Evangelicals call "accepting Jesus" is just the engagement. Baptism is the wedding. The Eucharist is the consummation. I can't really fathom a "living relationship" with Jesus that doesn't include the Eucharist. That's where He makes me fruitful, in so far as I am at all. Without It I'm sterile, trying to do on my own what only He can give. The Old Covenant was very physical. I believe Christ meant the New Covenant to be as well. In fact, I believe He meant it to be more physical: the consummation of what in the Old was only a promise and a prophesy. It's when the physical loses the connection to Christ that we risk becoming idolaters: pop stars, football teams, money, sex, even our spouses and our children. Much more dangerous than relics or icons, that are only venerated because they point to Christ.
Pretty different view here. I see YHWH promoting activities, not things...or put another way, objectives, not objects. He specifically makes a point of the fact that they didn't see a form of Him but were only given activities and objectives to pursue. Deut. 4:12, 13. His concept of love is fundamentally responsive. Deut. 13:3, 4; Jn. 14:15, Jn. 15:10.
Some of the intimacy you describe is not actualized yet...the wedding has not been consummated, and so the intimacy of the sensual is deliberately withheld until that time, as it should be.
Pretty different view here. I see YHWH promoting activities, not things.
New heaven and new earth? YHWH seems to be heavily into creating things but that is pushing too heavily into theology not OT news or Logos. However, your view is not uncommon.
Pretty different view here. I see YHWH promoting activities, not things. New heaven and new earth? YHWH seems to be heavily into creating things but that is pushing too heavily into theology not OT news or Logos. However, your view is not uncommon.
No doubt, it seems the tangible is part of the future (as opposed to purely spiritual), but the indication is our "personal" fabric will be such that we will not be inappropriately swayed by that which is physical. There is a balance. I think plenty is expressed that indicates tremendous care is needed and required, and it has nothing to do with how we feel. He sets the pattern of worship.
To use my Karate Kid analogy, in this life we are painting fences and posts and washing windows. In the next, we learn karate. There is a mistaken notion that YHWH has given us an all-access pass, right here and now. That kind of full disclosure is not on offer at this time.
He sets the pattern of worship.
Ah, you've been reading Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth [;)]
Donated? [:^)]I'm really not that much for travelling. I rather experience something locally, with our without friends.
He sets the pattern of worship. Ah, you've been reading Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Ah, you've been reading Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
I believe there is only one Mediator between God and Man and that is Christ Jesus.
As do those who revere relics. To think there is a contradiction implies a lack of understanding of the theology/psychology behind the concept of sacramental. To many, some traditions appear to be bibliolatry which is usually an equal misunderstanding.
At a folklore conference, a paper was given on Catholic "things' ... why we revel in our free glow-in-the-dark rosaries or cheap plastic St. Christopher's for the car - the funkier the better. (Note we also revel in de Vinci, Botticello ...). The basic thrust was that Catholics, in practice, can have anything, all things serve as a reminder of God present to them in their lives. The whole world can be a blessing that leads to God. Yes, this can lead to amusing scams and humorous misreadings, but if it helps some in their Christian life and harms no one, why not? Scams that harm are, of course, a different matter. The paper went on to contrast this view with the fallen world with few redeeming features that finds God only in restricted settings - the Bible, the worship service ...
There are other interesting resources on the topic but not in Logos.
I believe there is only one Mediator between God and Man and that is Christ Jesus. As do those who revere relics. To think there is a contradiction implies a lack of understanding of the theology/psychology behind the concept of sacramental. To many, some traditions appear to be bibliolatry which is usually an equal misunderstanding. At a folklore conference, a paper was given on Catholic "things' ... why we revel in our free glow-in-the-dark rosaries or cheap plastic St. Christopher's for the car - the funkier the better. (Note we also revel in de Vinci, Botticello ...). The basic thrust was that Catholics, in practice, can have anything, all things serve as a reminder of God present to them in their lives. The whole world can be a blessing that leads to God. Yes, this can lead to amusing scams and humorous misreadings, but if it helps some in their Christian life and harms no one, why not? Scams that harm are, of course, a different matter. The paper went on to contrast this view with the fallen world with few redeeming features that finds God only in restricted settings - the Bible, the worship service ... There are other interesting resources on the topic but not in Logos.
Now, David ... we don't actually know 'which' veil was split. We 'could' argue the 2nd one (per Josephus) giving access to the empty space Herod built (and for which modern day jews aren't quite sure where it might be).
Or alternatively it could be the 1st one (again per Joesphus) which separated the laity (jewish men) from the priesthood (more jewish men).
Of course, that's not to include 'which' of the '2nd' veils was split, being just cubits apart. Or indeed another one protecting the temple doors (which the centurion could have seen using the well attested mirror on the Mount of Olives.
I once asked our Pastor where he thought YHWH was, visa viz the Holy of Holies, since the Apostolic Constitutions (from the apostles themselves!!) confirms the Holy Spirit as having been inside the Holy of Holies.
I have no religious interest in relics or confidence they are authentic. I have an historical interest in anything relating to Biblical times.
It might be good not to debate the issue of relics, just as it is not wise to debate other theological issues.
intended only as suggestion. I am not in charge, though I often forget that
Now, David ... we don't actually know 'which' veil was split. We 'could' argue the 2nd one (per Josephus) giving access to the empty space Herod built (and for which modern day jews aren't quite sure where it might be). Or alternatively it could be the 1st one (again per Joesphus) which separated the laity (jewish men) from the priesthood (more jewish men).
I think the one leading into the Most Holy Place is what is indicated, given Heb. 10:19, 20, 21, 22, and the reference to "sprinkling with blood" and Yeishuu`a being a "great high priest". Additionally, Heb. 9:24, 25, and Heb. 10:3, 4 indicate the work of the high priest and give reference to the once per year offering that took place on Yohm Hakippuriym.
Btw, extremely high probability that someone at the foot of the cross would have been able to see directly into the Most Holy given the orientation of the temple facing east toward the Mount of Olives (where the red heifer was sacrificed). So much for Gordon's Calvary and that other place on the NW side of town.
what I saw was wrong
It sounds wrong the way you tell it, but not knowing anything about it I won't express an opinion. Generally, bishops are very negative to that kind of thing, and do their best to stop it. It's rather hard to get a miracle or an apparition approved by the Catholic Church.
I simply want to express why we see relics as a bad thing; we love that the existence demonstrates the veracity of scripture, but we hate how it appears that some of them are being abused inside and outside the church.
Which is the same reaction I have to big revival meetings with a lot of miraculous healings and a lot of collected money. Some of those 'miracles' are no more real than some of the 'relics'. But people's generosity and faith in God's power can still be virtuous, even when they're temporarily misguided. And the false nature of some 'miracles' doesn't mean that we should reject all miracles.
Its not the book itself, its the message left behind.
And it's not the relic itself, it's the power of God sanctifying it. Let's both try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we?[:)]
We need Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots in Logos. I haven't read it, but it ought to be good on this.
I'd like to respond to you too, David, but I'm too tired this time of the day, and tomorrow this thread may have become too infected to revive. But do read The Lamb's Supper.
MJ, did you see my question to you at the middle of page 1?
I live(d) in florida. A number of years ago a hard water deposit formed on a mirrored glass building. It happens. This particular hard water deposit had kind of a swirl and a line.
An accident of the sprinklers but I will say I found the deposit quite beautiful (pictures only), and while I hate anyone trying to take advantage of anyone through miracle (real or perceived). I am glad if this lead people to give to charity. If it leads to people seeking "filthy lucre" then that is something they are answerable for at that day. I see relics as artwork myself. Faith leads me to hold higher opinion on some. I am glad I was raised lutheran and so understand that while nothing beyond God is to be worshiped, some benefit from items that can help strengthen a faith in God.
what I saw was wrong It sounds wrong the way you tell it, but not knowing anything about it I won't express an opinion. Generally, bishops are very negative to that kind of thing, and do their best to stop it. It's rather hard to get a miracle or an apparition approved by the Catholic Church.
I simply want to express why we see relics as a bad thing; we love that the existence demonstrates the veracity of scripture, but we hate how it appears that some of them are being abused inside and outside the church. Which is the same reaction I have to big revival meetings with a lot of miraculous healings and a lot of collected money. Some of those 'miracles' are no more real than some of the 'relics'. But people's generosity and faith in God's power can still be virtuous, even when they're temporarily misguided. And the false nature of some 'miracles' doesn't mean that we should reject all miracles.
Its not the book itself, its the message left behind. And it's not the relic itself, it's the power of God sanctifying it. Let's both try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we? We need Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots in Logos. I haven't read it, but it ought to be good on this.
And it's not the relic itself, it's the power of God sanctifying it. Let's both try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we?
I live(d) in florida. A number of years ago a hard water deposit formed on a mirrored glass building. It happens. This particular hard water deposit had kind of a swirl and a line. An accident of the sprinklers but I will say I found the deposit quite beautiful (pictures only), and while I hate anyone trying to take advantage of anyone through miracle (real or perceived). I am glad if this lead people to give to charity. If it leads to people seeking "filthy lucre" then that is something they are answerable for at that day. I see relics as artwork myself. Faith leads me to hold higher opinion on some. I am glad I was raised lutheran and so understand that while nothing beyond God is to be worshiped, some benefit from items that can help strengthen a faith in God. -Dan
I see relics as artwork myself.
The issue, as always, is rather how YHWH sees it. The seemingly ubiquitous verses of Mt. 7:21, 22 indicate that what some see as credible expressions of worship are not viewed that way by the One who receives the worship. As the example of `Uzzaah' shows (2 Sam. 6:6, 7), good intentions are not just irrelevant, they can be quite deadly. The man certainly meant no harm...and dropped like a sack of concrete.
I am glad I was raised lutheran and so understand that while nothing beyond God is to be worshiped, some benefit from items that can help strengthen a faith in God.
I think your phrase "items that can help strengthen a faith in God" is dubious and indicates the possibility that Inigo's dictum, another seemingly ubiquitous expression, could be in play. I don't think any "item" can strengthen faith.
Nope - it depends on the recipient
For thousands of years the faithful have been receiving ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday, also referred to as “dies cinerum” (Day of Ashes). The ashes come from the burnt palms from Palm Sunday. They are fragranced with incense, sprinkled with holy water, and are blessed with four ancient prayers. Unlike lay individuals, clerics historically receive the ashes on the top of their heads because that is where they first received their clerical tonsure. This is why you might see our Holy Father Pope Francis with ashes on his head rather than his forehead..
in the sanctification of objects
This is not terminology that I am comfortable with although Logos shows that it occurs in the Talmud. (Yes, I do recognize that it meets the standard dictionary definition - it's just not a common usage for me.) Rather I'd go more the direction of Robert A. Emmons & Cheryl A. Crumpler: "We advocate using the term sacralization to refer to sanctification in the external sense - the sanctification of objects, places, or persons-and suggest that sanctification refers to an inner process of transformation, whereby persons are made pure or holy."
Oh to have the real OED available in Logos at an affordable price.
but we hate how it appears that some of them are being abused inside and outside the church.
Since you are unlikely to have this in your Logos library (bolding is mine):
Deviations in Popular Piety64. While the Magisterium highlights the undeniable qualities of popular piety, it does not hesitate to point out dangers which can affect it: lack of a sufficient number of Christian elements such as the salvific significance of the Resurrection of Christ, an awareness of belonging to the Church, the person and action of the Holy Spirit; a disproportionate interest between the Saints and the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ and his mysteries; lack of direct contact with Sacred Scripture; isolation from the Church’s sacramental life; a dichotomy between worship and the duties of Christian life; a utilitarian view of some forms of popular piety; the use of “signs, gestures and formulae, which sometimes become excessively important or even theatrical”; and in certain instances, the risk of “promoting sects, or even superstition, magic, fatalism or oppression”.65. In its attempts to remedy such defects in popular piety, the contemporary Magisterium has insistently stressed the need to “evangelize” popular piety, and sees it in relation to the Gospel which “will progressively free it from its defects; purify it, consolidate it and clarify that which is ambiguous by referring it of the contents of faith, hope and charity”.Pastoral sensibility recommends that the work of “evangelizing” popular piety should proceed patiently, tolerantly, and with great prudence, following the methodology adopted by the Church throughout the centuries in matters relating to inculturation of the Christian faith, the Sacred Liturgy and those inherent in popular piety.Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002).
but we hate how it appears that some of them are being abused inside and outside the church. Since you are unlikely to have this in your Logos library (bolding is mine): Deviations in Popular Piety64. While the Magisterium highlights the undeniable qualities of popular piety, it does not hesitate to point out dangers which can affect it: lack of a sufficient number of Christian elements such as the salvific significance of the Resurrection of Christ, an awareness of belonging to the Church, the person and action of the Holy Spirit; a disproportionate interest between the Saints and the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ and his mysteries; lack of direct contact with Sacred Scripture; isolation from the Church’s sacramental life; a dichotomy between worship and the duties of Christian life; a utilitarian view of some forms of popular piety; the use of “signs, gestures and formulae, which sometimes become excessively important or even theatrical”; and in certain instances, the risk of “promoting sects, or even superstition, magic, fatalism or oppression”.65. In its attempts to remedy such defects in popular piety, the contemporary Magisterium has insistently stressed the need to “evangelize” popular piety, and sees it in relation to the Gospel which “will progressively free it from its defects; purify it, consolidate it and clarify that which is ambiguous by referring it of the contents of faith, hope and charity”.Pastoral sensibility recommends that the work of “evangelizing” popular piety should proceed patiently, tolerantly, and with great prudence, following the methodology adopted by the Church throughout the centuries in matters relating to inculturation of the Christian faith, the Sacred Liturgy and those inherent in popular piety.Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002).
So as in any church there is a disconnect between the clergy and laity; the laity puts more emphasis on the spurious (no offense) things, and the clergy puts more emphasis on the gospel (etc) than on the saints.
Definitely, although because of the economic and cultural diversity, it is much more of a continuum than a disconnect.
"because tradition is elevated over scripture"
This is utter garbage commonly repeated because its an easy to understand catch-all which is always preferable to knowing what you're talking about. Or at least that seems to be the common stance of apologetics across the board.
Tradition and scripture are technically seen as equal but with Scripture having material primacy. And by "tradition" we mean "apostolic tradition" not historical church discipline.
Quick and unofficial answers:
dead individuals prayed to (as I saw alot of in Europe)
I suspect you misunderstood the situation. Do you ever ask members of your congregation to pray for each other? We extend that practice to the whole church - living or dead.
why candles are lit
When there are particular concerns on our mind, we often don't have time to pray as long as we might wish. The candle is a reminder of our intent for which we wish we had more time to pray - and a reminder to our parish of our unspoken concerns. Many when passing lit candles will give a short prayer asking God to address the concerns those candles represent.
they do things like elevate Mary above Christ in their art?
I've never heard this charge before nor do I think it to be factual. Yes, icons of the Theotokos are common and popular as a means of emphasizing the Incarnation - a topic much more prominent in Catholic-Orthodox circles than many Protestant groups.
because Mary was ultimately in "control" of Christ,
Never heard this heresy before either. Pelikan has a good book on the history of Marian devotion. Actually sociological and psychological pastoral materials are a good entry point.
why saints are venerated at all
For the same reason a pee-wee leaguer venerates a high school player - a concrete example of an exemplary Christian life lived by another fallible human with whom you feel a personal affinity makes Christian perfection more concrete and more attainable than a 1st century Galilean who was God as well as human. Not that Jesus isn't a great example but he set an example that seems somewhat unattainable. St. Jerome who was apparently very difficult to live with or St Therese of Lisieux serving God in the simple tasks of daily life are much more attainable.
European churches is greater than her role in their american counterparts
It is true that Marian devotion has ethnic connections - I suspect "European" is a bit too broad given the practices immigrants brought to the US. But then I have a Presbyterian friend who was raised believing that Catholics were obligated to pray the Rosary daily. Many Catholics can't even follow the directions on how to pray the Rosary. For a Reformed view, Logos offers Mary for All Christians by John Macquarrie
Philippians 1:15–18
I live(d) in florida. A number of years ago a hard water deposit formed on a mirrored glass building. It happens. This particular hard water deposit had kind of a swirl and a line. An accident of the sprinklers but I will say I found the deposit quite beautiful (pictures only), and while I hate anyone trying to take advantage of anyone through miracle (real or perceived). I am glad if this lead people to give to charity. If it leads to people seeking "filthy lucre" then that is something they are answerable for at that day. I see relics as artwork myself. Faith leads me to hold higher opinion on some. I am glad I was raised lutheran and so understand that while nothing beyond God is to be worshiped, some benefit from items that can help strengthen a faith in God. -Dan Philippians 1:15–18
That's interesting...Paul's little passage came to my mind as well. The problem with Paul's little comment is that it is entirely "wool-eyed" as to what such preaching can accomplish. I (inevitably, it seems) must recall Mt. 7:21, 22 where "good things" done "in His name" only serve to raise His hackles and provoke His ire. Someone convinced these people that "the way they were doing things was the way they should be done". Fortunately, we can take solace in the fact that such shenanigans were prophesied. Isa. 3:12, Isa. 9:16, Mic. 3:5...that is, we can take solace as long as we haven't been duped by one of these blind guides or erring prophets. Paul's inability to see what his cheery, rose-colored pronouncement about the joy ill-motives can produce does no one any favors. Simply chanting "Jesus is Lord!" or "Jesus saves!" saves no one.
1 Thess 5:17
plus the anonymous Way of the Pilgrim if necessary
My attitude toward all of this is that of the sensible Thomas:
24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe."
Jn 20.24-25
[Y]
You make a very good point, David. I completely overlooked that. I guess what I was thinking was that Yahweh sometimes uses the jealous brothers, the hardened heart of pharaoh, the evil king to accomplish His will and to bring about good. That God sometimes uses people/events to His good despite their good or bad motives.
So as in any church there is a disconnect between the clergy and laity; the laity puts more emphasis on the spurious (no offense) things, and the clergy puts more emphasis on the gospel (etc) than on the saints. Definitely, although because of the economic and cultural diversity, it is much more of a continuum than a disconnect.
"because tradition is elevated over scripture" This is utter garbage commonly repeated because its an easy to understand catch-all which is always preferable to knowing what you're talking about. Or at least that seems to be the common stance of apologetics across the board. Tradition and scripture are technically seen as equal but with Scripture having material primacy. And by "tradition" we mean "apostolic tradition" not historical church discipline.
Quick and unofficial answers: dead individuals prayed to (as I saw alot of in Europe) I suspect you misunderstood the situation. Do you ever ask members of your congregation to pray for each other? We extend that practice to the whole church - living or dead.
why candles are lit When there are particular concerns on our mind, we often don't have time to pray as long as we might wish. The candle is a reminder of our intent for which we wish we had more time to pray - and a reminder to our parish of our unspoken concerns. Many when passing lit candles will give a short prayer asking God to address the concerns those candles represent.
they do things like elevate Mary above Christ in their art? I've never heard this charge before nor do I think it to be factual. Yes, icons of the Theotokos are common and popular as a means of emphasizing the Incarnation - a topic much more prominent in Catholic-Orthodox circles than many Protestant groups.
because Mary was ultimately in "control" of Christ, Never heard this heresy before either. Pelikan has a good book on the history of Marian devotion. Actually sociological and psychological pastoral materials are a good entry point.
why saints are venerated at all For the same reason a pee-wee leaguer venerates a high school player - a concrete example of an exemplary Christian life lived by another fallible human with whom you feel a personal affinity makes Christian perfection more concrete and more attainable than a 1st century Galilean who was God as well as human. Not that Jesus isn't a great example but he set an example that seems somewhat unattainable. St. Jerome who was apparently very difficult to live with or St Therese of Lisieux serving God in the simple tasks of daily life are much more attainable.
European churches is greater than her role in their american counterparts It is true that Marian devotion has ethnic connections - I suspect "European" is a bit too broad given the practices immigrants brought to the US. But then I have a Presbyterian friend who was raised believing that Catholics were obligated to pray the Rosary daily. Many Catholics can't even follow the directions on how to pray the Rosary. For a Reformed view, Logos offers Mary for All Christians by John Macquarrie
