Jesus vs. Mary and the Saints

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Dec 31 2004, 01:31 PM'] If it so happens that one truth is being rejected, and therefore all, then is my friend technically not Catholic? I still think he should go to Mass, but should he stop taking communion?
[/quote]
A person may be invincibly ignorant of a truth of the faith and as a consequence he may lack culpability for his error. But invincible ignorance must not be reduced to simple ignorance, because to be invincibly ignorant a man must be incapable of understanding the truth. Such a man must have sought out the answer in every way that he could, using everything at his disposal, but he was simply unable, through no fault of his own, of comprehending the truth. Any other ignorance is vincible.

Pray for your friend.

God bless,
Todd

[cmotherofpirl]

Any praise or veneration given to the Saints or Mary is really given to the God who made them.

Some people are better at balance than others. You really can know unless you specifically ask this person his motivation and intent.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Dec 31 2004, 01:31 PM'] This is a personal question; must Catholics agree with every type of devotion and veneration? I'm specifically refering to an instance where female dancers with ribbons were running around a statue, bowing down, shaking, etc. If I was a Protestant I would have thought this to be pagan because it resembled something pagans would do in front of an idol or a fetish. I wasn't the only person who was uncomfortable. I'm an ethnic Catholic and I understand the importance of preserving culture and heritage, but are there any rules on when a devotion or veneration of saints or the BVM can go too far and become unhealthy, or is it all up to the individual? [/quote]
A distinction needs to be made between the particular forms of devotion and how they arise in the Church, and the dogmatic reality that is conveyed by those devotions. One can choose not to do a particular devotional practice, but one cannot deny the dogmatic reality underlying the practice. The veneration of the saints is not a mere devotion that one can dispense with, especially in the Eastern Catholic tradition; instead, the veneration of the saints, because they are infused with God's own energy, is a truth of Catholic dogma. As long as this distinction is borne in mind there is no problem. Everyone has different interests and so their expressions of devotion can differ, but they should not take lightly the Church's approved devotional practices, and they must never deny the doctrinal or dogmatic truth underlying the devotional practice in question.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Dec 31 2004, 01:31 PM'] Thanks people. So his devotion must not be proper. How does someone go about correcting this?
[/quote]
What you need to do is explain the doctrine of the incarnation to him. It is the incarnation of God that makes the veneration of the saints possible, for it is the incarnation that is the source of all the grace in this world. God became man, in order that man might become God. Every man is called to the life of grace, and every man is meant to become an icon of Christ by participating in God's own uncreated life and glory. The saints are the definitive completion of this reality, for they have been divinized by God's uncreated grace, and have become partakers of the divine nature. [2nd Peter 1:4]

Perhaps this analogy will help: the saints are like the images upon a stained glass window, you see their particular form and can identify who they are, but the light shining through the window does not come from the window itself or the image upon it; rather, it comes from the sun which shines brightly illuminating the image on the window giving it its radiant beauty, and of course the sun and its light stand for God.

The glory of the saints is a gift of God's grace to them, and to all of us; and that gift must be honored by those who have been made sons of God in the only begotten Son of God. Clearly then, when a man venerates the saints, he venerates God who made them holy.

God bless,
Todd

[M.SIGGA]

thanks. this is all good. thanks cmom too.

Edited December 31, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[Don John of Austria]

[quote] I'm specifically refering to an instance where female dancers with ribbons were running around a statue, bowing down, shaking, etc. If I was a Protestant I would have thought this to be pagan because it resembled something pagans would do in front of an idol or a fetish. I wasn't the only person who was uncomfortable. I'm an ethnic Catholic and I understand the importance of preserving culture and heritage, but are there any rules on when a devotion or veneration of saints or the BVM can go too far and become unhealthy, or is it all up to the individual?
[/quote]

You see Sigga I would agree with you that that is a pagan expression. So by the way would the Church litergical dance is an illicit practice and is forbidden.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 31 2004, 02:19 PM'] You see Sigga I would agree with you that that is a pagan expression. So by the way would the Church litergical dance is an illicit practice and is forbidden. [/quote]
In Western cultures and in the Eastern Rites dance is illicit, but the Holy See has permitted dance in liturgical functions in some African countries.

God bless,
Todd

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 31 2004, 03:19 PM']
You see Sigga I would agree with you that that is a pagan expression. So by the way would the Church litergical dance is an illicit practice and is forbidden. [/quote]
I believe it's licit only in Home Missions parishes in the United States, which are usually under the Josephites, Divine Word Missionaries, Edmundites and Redemptorists - specifically those designated as either African American or Native American or Ethnic Hawaiian. So it would be illicit at your average parish down the street, but I might be wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

Well When I had this problem a few years ago and researhed it the only things i could find on it declared it illicit I could find NO exceptons, and believe me I looked.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA @ Dec 31 2004' date=' 01:31 PM']This is a personal question; must Catholics agree with every type of devotion and veneration? I'm specifically refering to an instance where female dancers with ribbons were running around a statue, bowing down, shaking, etc. If I was a Protestant I would have thought this to be pagan because it resembled something pagans would do in front of an idol or a fetish. I wasn't the only person who was uncomfortable. I'm an ethnic Catholic and I understand the importance of preserving culture and heritage, but are there any rules on when a devotion or veneration of saints or the BVM can go too far and become unhealthy, or is it all up to the individual?[/quote]
Although, as already noted, dance is not a proper devotional or liturgical practice in Western countries, there are things – like ceremonies where a parish crowns a statue of the Holy Theotokos – that are perfectly legitimate, but which Protestants would find objectionable. Protestants of course would disagree with a crowning ceremony, because they would see it as "pagan," but Protestants no longer have a theology based on the incarnation. The theology of the Reformers doesn't take seriously the sacramental nature of reality. Icons are more than mere pointers to a reality that is present elsewhere; instead, they contain God's uncreated energies and they are hypostatically related to the saint that they depict. The veneration of icons was declared a dogma of the Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea II.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 31 2004, 02:29 PM'] Well When I had this problem a few years ago and researhed it the only things i could find on it declared it illicit I could find NO exceptons, and believe me I looked. [/quote]
Then you better take that up with the Pope, because he has permitted dancing during the liturgy in African countries, even liturgies in which he has been the celebrant.

Liturgical dance is forbidden in Western countries and in the Eastern Rites.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

The following is taken from the 1994 Instruction [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], which deals with the proper inculturation of the liturgy in newly evangelized lands:

[quote name='Congregation for Divine Worship' date=' Instruction Varietates Legitimae, no. 42']Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by handclapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance.[/quote]
God bless,
Todd

[Guest JeffCR07]

Liturgical dance is also allowed in the case of native Hawaiians, on account of the fact that, within their cultural tradition, dance is another form of communication in addition to spoken and written word, however, it has been strictly expressed that non-native Hawaiians may not participate in such liturgies.


Also, Todd, I just have a quick comment/question. I do not think that anything that you said regarding Icons on the previous page is contrary to Western theology. We may not express Icons as having uncreated Divine Energies, but we do maintain that the Saint depicted is mysteriously present in his or her icon, we also maintain that communion with the saints is an integral and necessary part of the faith, as well as hold that [i]veneration of[/i] the saints and [i]prayer to[/i] the saints is proper and fitting for a Christian.

It seems to me that within the Eastern theology icons may play a more significant role than they do in the west (a fact that I find regretable) and thus have a further developed theology around them, but I do not see the teachings of the East and West on the matter as being contrary, let alone contradictory, as it appears that you present during your discussion with Madonna.

Or perhaps I am simply reading the tone of your posts wrong

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[M.SIGGA]

An intesting conversation came up this afternoon. Was there ever a teaching for Catholics to be weary of Eastern Orthodox veneration of icons prior to Vatican II? My mother told me she was taught as a child by religious that the Eastern Orthodox veneration of icons was something evil. So I asked my grandmother, her mother, and she said the same thing and went further to say she was taught the Eastern Orthodox worship pictures. Is the Eastern Orthodox teaching on icons the exact same as Byzantine Catholics? Is the same teaching on icons also assumed for statues of saints in the Latin Church? I'm assuming this teaching was error, from reading previous posts, and probably occured because of prejudice or most people didn't know anything about Byzantine Catholics. Could this idea have come from when the Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated? Thanks.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 1 2005, 06:51 AM'] [. . .]

Also, Todd, I just have a quick comment/question. I do not think that anything that you said regarding Icons on the previous page is contrary to Western theology. We may not express Icons as having uncreated Divine Energies, but we do maintain that the Saint depicted is mysteriously present in his or her icon, we also maintain that communion with the saints is an integral and necessary part of the faith, as well as hold that [i]veneration of[/i] the saints and [i]prayer to[/i] the saints is proper and fitting for a Christian.

It seems to me that within the Eastern theology icons may play a more significant role than they do in the west (a fact that I find regretable) and thus have a further developed theology around them, but I do not see the teachings of the East and West on the matter as being contrary, let alone contradictory, as it appears that you present during your discussion with Madonna.

Or perhaps I am simply reading the tone of your posts wrong 

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly with you that both East and West share a common tradition as it concerns the veneration of saints, but there is a fundamental difference between East and West in how the two traditions understand the nature of icons. Again, both East and West reverence icons, this is quite clear, although the West does not emphasize this at the present time, but they don't completely agree on the nature of icons as manifestations of the reality of the person depicted in them. The Western Church was heavily influenced by the theory of signs advanced by Augustine, while the East was never really affected by Augustine's theology at all, because most of Augustine's writings weren't even translated into Greek until the mid-fourteenth century.

Augustine, in his theory of signs, makes a distinction between a sign (signum) and the thing (res) signified by it, and so, for him a sign merely points to a reality that is present elsewhere, for a sign operates only as a mental reminder of something that is in fact absent. In other words, a sign merely points to the reality of the thing signified by it, but does not contain that reality within itself. Hence, in the Augustinian tradition icons are thought of only as mental reminders of a person not actually present.

Now it is quite clear that Augustine's theory of signs is not compatible with the Eastern Catholic doctrine of icons as set forth in the writings of St. John Damascene, St. Theodore Studite, and the definitions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In Eastern Catholic theology a sign and the thing signified by it are one and the same reality. The sign and its heavenly prototype form a single living complexus, a single whole, and so the prototype cannot be manifested without its proper sign, while the sign can never be thought of as distinct from its prototype. In other words, an icon manifests and makes present the living reality of the person depicted. Moreover, in the Eastern tradition icons, as living realities, bestow God's uncreated energies (graces) upon those who venerate them. An icon is not an inanimate object; instead, it is a living manifestation of the person depicted in it. Thus, as Photius of Constantinople said, sacred icons are a "clear and unadulterated reflection of [their] prototypes . . . [consequently] they are no longer wooden boards . . . or colors bereft of the inherent power and grace which produces form, neither can they be so conceived nor so named; but rather, they are holy and honourable and glorified and venerable. For having come to participate in the energy that comes from above, and in those holy persons, they bear the form and the name and are dedicated, they transport the minds to them and bring us blessings and divine favour from them. They are not indeed named after the material from which the icon is made or after any other property which is incongruous and applies to their opposites. On the contrary it is from those in whom they participate [i.e., the saint depicted], . . . and whom they serve, and to whom they are dedicated, that they are very rightly known by the true devotees and receive their name." [Photius, [u]Epistulae et Amphilochia[/u]]

So although I do agree that East and West share a common incarnational focus in theology, they do differ in how they understand the nature of icons as participations in the living reality of their heavenly prototypes.