MLK and Ghandi images in our Church

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 29 2005, 02:19 PM'].... I'm sorry. 
I just got a little emotional - my mother is an energetic worker for civil rights () and I inherited it from her.
To be honest, I was more arguing with people like [b]Extra ecclesiam nulla salus[/b], whose opinions regarding this thread I strongly disagree with, and I made the mistake of assuming that you agreed with him completely.

Really, are the icons in the Church that important?  I always liked Lucy Maud Montgomery's line that the best Church is one among the pine trees in a forest at  dawn, in perfect communion with nature.  And if your parish is spending its money for icons on, say, helping Katrina victims, that's commendable and in my opinion more important than a few painted pictures on a wall and whether or not they have a little white paint daubed in circles. Or if your church doesn't have any budget at all, well... that's a valid excuse.
I don't think it's that important whether or not the fellows are Catholic or even Christian... but if you want to improve your parish, then I would say that your first priority is to get the crucifix and Marian statue in a noticeable place, then focus on the non-Catholic saints.  Then you can have a respectable set of icons and donate money to the monument to Dr. King in Washington D.C.  Hooray.

I'm sorry again.  I'll try to learn to hold my tongue - er, fingers on the keyboard - in future. 
[right][snapback]838902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sorry for coming off so offended. I got the feeling you were confused and I shouldn't have taken it personal. I am not in favor of these particular representations, but this place has more important problems beyond outward appearances. There are going to be some changes in leadership soon though anyway, so I will pray that it takes us in a new direction. God bless.

[scardella]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 29 2005, 01:19 PM']Really, are the icons in the Church that important?[/quote]

Yea, they are. The artwork (icons, stained glass, statuary, etc.) in a church is a kind of catechesis. Back when illiteracy was more prevalent, it was one of the better ways to help catechise the Faithful. By enshrining them in your church, it means that these people are people to emulate in the faith. When you enshrine a hindu and a baptist in a catholic church, you're sending people mixed signals. You're either saying that any church will do, or that you don't think that you've got the one true church.

[quote]I always liked Lucy Maud Montgomery's line that the best Church is one among the pine trees in a forest at  dawn, in perfect communion with nature.[/quote]

Well, I don't like it. It seems to be implicitly worshipping nature. Give me a real edifice any day.

Genesis 1:28-30:
[i]God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; [b]fill the earth and subdue it.[/b] Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth." God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.[/i]

[quote]And if your parish is spending its money for icons on, say, helping Katrina victims, that's commendable and in my opinion more important than a few painted pictures on a wall and whether or not they have a little white paint daubed in circles.[/quote]

You can send the check to... (I've got a long list of Katrina victims if you want them... my boss is one of them. Technically, you could say I'm one, since I'm no longer living in my apartment, and I spent 3 months in Houston more or less against my will.) But I do think that it's just as important to have a church that represents an orthodox understanding.


[quote]
<snippage>
I don't think it's that important whether or not the fellows are Catholic or even Christian... but if you want to improve your parish, then I would say that your first priority is to get the crucifix and Marian statue in a noticeable place, then focus on the non-Catholic saints.  Then you can have a respectable set of icons and donate money to the monument to Dr. King in Washington D.C.  Hooray.
[right][snapback]838902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This doesn't make any sense. If you profess to believe in a religion, then you by default mean others are lacking. In a Catholic Church, you better be promoting Catholicism, or else you're confused.

PS. maybe you can drag the offending icons to the trash and delete them.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:19 PM'].... I'm sorry. 
I just got a little emotional - my mother is an energetic worker for civil rights () and I inherited it from her.
To be honest, I was more arguing with people like [b]Extra ecclesiam nulla salus[/b], whose opinions regarding this thread I strongly disagree with, and I made the mistake of assuming that you agreed with him completely.

Really, are the icons in the Church that important?  I always liked Lucy Maud Montgomery's line that the best Church is one among the pine trees in a forest at  dawn, in perfect communion with nature.  And if your parish is spending its money for icons on, say, helping Katrina victims, that's commendable and in my opinion more important than a few painted pictures on a wall and whether or not they have a little white paint daubed in circles. Or if your church doesn't have any budget at all, well... that's a valid excuse.
I don't think it's that important whether or not the fellows are Catholic or even Christian... but if you want to improve your parish, then I would say that your first priority is to get the crucifix and Marian statue in a noticeable place, then focus on the non-Catholic saints.  Then you can have a respectable set of icons and donate money to the monument to Dr. King in Washington D.C.  Hooray.

I'm sorry again.  I'll try to learn to hold my tongue - er, fingers on the keyboard - in future. 
[right][snapback]838902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would recommend reading 'Part Three' of [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898707846/qid=1135890408/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7983398-8358346?n=507846&s=books&v=glance"]The Spirit of the Liturgy[/url] by Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). It will open your mind to the theological significance of the Church's iconography.

INXC
Myles

[friarMatt]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 28 2005, 11:41 PM']Martin Luther King was an aldulter anyway. ghandi was no saint either.

plus they are not catholic. that is horribile.

(Oscar Romero was a marxist too, i would never hang his picture up)
[right][snapback]838341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

well Romero's cause for canonization is being advanced....and before he was elected, I read that Card. Ratzinger took a special interest and had no oppostion to any of his writings or teachings.

to quote one of my profesors: "the only thing worse then arrogance is arrogance on top of ignorance"

[Aloysius]

the only people I know are in heaven are canonized saints. any one else I refuse to speculate. but good works don't get anyone into heaven, so I would never say either MLK or Ghandi are probably in heaven just because of their historical impacts

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]I always liked Lucy Maud Montgomery's line that the best Church is one among the pine trees in a forest at  dawn, in perfect communion with nature.[/quote]

I'll respectfully have to disagree with Montgomery. I know some memoirs about Ronald Reagan went along the same lines where "the trees on his ranch were the spires of his Cathedral" and I certainly think nature is a great place to spend time with God. But it's not the "best Church," as it would require man to seek no real truth, nor would it provide a concrete roadmap as to how one should be living.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

plus how does civil rights sanctify and save souls?

[quote]well Romero's cause for canonization is being advanced....and before he was elected, I read that Card. Ratzinger took a special interest and had no oppostion to any of his writings or teachings.

to quote one of my profesors: "the only thing worse then arrogance is arrogance on top of ignorance"[/quote]

frankly what the former Cardinal Ratzinger said doesn't matter. John Paul II said what he taught was marxism.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[friarMatt]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 30 2005, 08:12 AM']plus how does civil rights sanctify and save souls?
frankly what the former Cardinal Ratzinger said doesn't matter. John Paul II said what he taught was marxism.
[right][snapback]839609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


please show me where? I am also interested why the good Cardinals opinion doesn't matter? This sounds almost like dissent...

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 30 2005, 02:08 PM']I'll respectfully have to disagree with Montgomery. I know some memoirs about Ronald Reagan went along the same lines where "the trees on his ranch were the spires of his Cathedral" and I certainly think nature is a great place to spend time with God. But it's not the "best Church," as it would require man to seek no real truth, nor would it provide a concrete roadmap as to how one should be living.
[right][snapback]839604[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. This approach to truth always makes truth unattainable even when it does admit the possibility of objectivity beyond ourselves. Nature does not give answer for itself only the Logos, the Word made flesh can orate the ultimate truth of being:

[quote]We start with a reflection on the situation of man. He exists as a limited being in a limited world, but his reason is open to the unlimited, to all of being. The proof consists in the recognition of his finitude, of his contingence: I am, but I could not-be. Many things which do not exist could exist. Essences are limited, but being (l'être) is not. That division, the "real distinction" of St. Thomas, is the source of all the religious and philosophical thought of humanity. It is not necessary to recall that all human philosophy (if we abstract the biblical domain and its influence) is essentially religious and theological at once, because it poses the problem of the Absolute Being, whether one attributes to it a personal character or not.

What are the major solutions to this enigma attempted by humanity? One can try to leave behind the division between being (tre) and essence, between the infinite and the finite; one will then say that all being is infinite and immutable (Parmenides) or that all is movement, rhythm between contraries, becoming (Heraclitus).

In the first case, the finite and limited will be non-being as such, thus an illusion that one must detect: this is the solution of Buddhist mysticism with its thousand nuances in the Far East. It is also the Plotinian solution: the truth is only attained in ecstasy where one touches the One, which is at the same time All and Nothing (relative to all the rest which only seems to exist). The second case contradicts itself: pure becoming in pure finitude can only conceive of itself in identifying the contraries: life and death, good fortune and adversity, wisdom and folly (Heraclitus did this).

Thus it is necessary to commence from an inescapable duality: the finite is not the infinite. In Plato the sensible, terrestrial world is not the ideal, divine world. The question is then inevitable: Whence comes the division? Why are we not God?

The first attempt at a response: there must have been a fall, a decline, and the road to salvation can only be the return of the sensible finite into the intelligible infinite. That is the way of all non-biblical mystics. The second attempt at a response: the infinite God had need of a finite world. Why? To perfect himself, to actualize all of his possibilities? Or even to have an object to love? The two solutions lead to pantheism. In both cases, the Absolute, God in himself, has again become indigent, thus finite. But if God has no need of the world-yet again: Why does the world exist?

No philosophy could give a satisfactory response to that question. St. Paul would say to the philosophers that God created man so that he would seek the Divine, try to attain the Divine. That is why all pre-Christian philosophy is theological at its summit. But, in fact, the true response to philosophy could only be given by Being himself, revealing himself from himself. Will man be capable of understanding this revelation? The affirmative response will be given only by the God of the Bible. On the one hand, this God, Creator of the world and of man, knows his creature. "I who have created the eye, do I not see? I who have created the ear, do I not hear?" And we add "I who have created language, could I not speak and make myself heard?" And this posits a counterpart: to be able to hear and understand the auto-revelation of God man must in himself be a search for God, a question posed to him. Thus there is no biblical theology without a religious philosophy. Human reason must be open to the infinite.
[/quote]

[dandy777]

In the Roman Catholic church, the title of Saint - with a capital 'S' - refers to a person who has been formally canonized (officially recognized) by the Church. Formal Canonization is a lengthy process often taking many years, even centuries. The process includes a thorough investigation of the individual who has been put forth as a candidate for Sainthood. This investigation typically is concerned with examining and confirming (or disproving) any number of visions or miracles that may have been attributed to the person in question, or of the general holiness or specific good deeds that he or she may have done while alive. It should be noted, however, that the Church places special weight on those miracles or instances of intercession that happened after the individual died and which are seen to be demonstrative of the Saint's continued special relationship with God after death. Also, by this definition there are many people in heaven who have not been formally declared as Saints (most typically due to their obscurity and the involved process of formal canonization) but who may nevertheless generically be referred to as saints (lowercase 's').

While it can at times seem so, Saints are not worshipped — this would violate the Ten Commandments — but are asked for their help or their own prayer for a person. Some Saints intercede for specific problems: a "patron saint". The honor given to saints is fundamentally distinct from the worship given to God. The Church calls the worship due to God "latria", and the honor due to saints "dulia". In honoring the saints, the faithful give glory to God, in the same sense in which one gives glory to an artist by admiring his handiwork. The saints are seen as models of holiness to be imitated, and as a 'cloud of witnesses' that strengthen and encourage the believer during his or her spiritual journey (Hebrews 12:1). The saints are seen as elder brothers and sisters in Christ, and just as believers may ask their fellow brothers and sisters on earth for intercessory prayer, the prayers of the saints in heaven can be requested as well.

Once a person has been declared a Saint, the body of the Saint is considered holy. In past centuries, the remains of Saints were distributed as holy artifacts. In modern times, however, there is a growing trend to respect the body of a Saint, leaving it alone and buried.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints#Roman_Catholicism"]Source[/url]

I think the people mentioned are great people like Gandhi and MLK yet that doesn't mean that they should be called saints. What about Mother Teresa and JPII? Weren't they great people as well.

[dandy777]

Hey Myles!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]John Paul II, who was present and very influential at the Vatican II (1962-65), affirmed the teachings of that Council and did much to implement them. Nevertheless, his critics often wished aloud that he would embrace the so-called "progressive" agenda that some hoped would evolve as a result of the Council. John Paul II continued to declare that contraception, abortion, and homosexual acts were gravely sinful, and, [b]with Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI), opposed Liberation theology[/b][/quote]

[quote]Pope John Paul II largely put an end to official support for liberation theology among the Catholic Church's hierarchy by his statement in January 1979, on a visit to Mexico, that [b]"this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church's teachings", [/b]symbolizing Vatican's success in re-instating its authority among clergy tempted by social and political action. However, liberation theology retained a high degree of support, especially among the laity and individual priests. And indeed John Paul himself afterward acknowledged that Marxism contained within it a "kernel of truth" about the exploitative nature of capitalism.[/quote]

Edited December 30, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[friarMatt]

those two quotes contain NOTHING that lend credence to anything attacking the credibility, virtue or holiness of Archbishop Romero

[spiritmech]

"Really, are the icons in the Church that important?"

Good gravy! My jaw dropped when I read that. Please see 7th council.
sm

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

lets give the breaf version of that:
Many Martyers died protecting their icons.