Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
You need to read church history better! teh early church was raucous and had major disagreements.
Even teh Council that canonized teh NY almost became a brawl!
Why do Catholics…
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You need to read church history better! teh early church was raucous and had major disagreements.
Even teh Council that canonized teh NY almost became a brawl!
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well you could not be further from the truth if you tried about how I study Scripture- but thanks for proving you are very presumptious
In my 48 years I have read close to 800 books as ell as manuscripts, tractises et al. Maybe instead of making stuff up out of loin cloth you should ask before you make foolish stements!
But in all th at reading I compare their conclusions with what Scripture says.
And I hold to th eliteral/historical/grammatical method of understanding Scripture!
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Noticed Marymog deflected, didn’t reply to your points.:
Yes she seems too afraid to tell me that truth. Though I think I may have a good idea what it is!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
What you have been taught for years is false on two counts.
First, there is no official condemnation for Sabbatarians. All formal Catholic teachings are available on line, condemnation for Sabbatarians is SDA paranoid psychosis, it doesn't exist.
Second, many Catholics fulfill their Sunday obligation by participating at Mass on Saturday, so the "Sabbath condemnation" argument collapses in a heap.
You miss the point. OT circumcision had to be done 8 days after birth. You rigidly adhere to the Jewish rule of Sabbath-only worship, and disregard the Jewish rules for circumcision, then you have no consistency. You guys might want to check yourselves to see if you are in compliance.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
You should quote Augustine in context instead of making things up.
The biggest reasons why different denominations and inner denomination squabbles and schisms doctrinally occur is because "sola scriptura" is a false premise, it's not taught explicitly anywhere in Scripture and Protestantism bases everything on it. Other reasons is no central authority and no unifying Eucharist.
Agreed.
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
read more here
His people are.
1 Peter 2:9-10 ESV
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
This is what i was posting in reference to this (theefaith had posted this and what you quoted from me was my comment on this paragraph):
"Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
Read the last sentence. I also told him he needed to check himself to make sure he was in compliance with the other one.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
It would take a book to address each item in this list. It's a cheap shotgun tactic that proves a rigid unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.
(agreed by every Protestant denomination before the 18th century, as taught by every major reformer.)
(agreed by every Protestant denomination before the 18th century, as taught by every major reformer.)
(no one could find her body, the Assumption affirms the resurrections of all God's children)
Every Jewish king, including Jesus, had a queen, which you ignore. A queenless king would be unthinkable to any 1st century Jewish Christian.
Wrong. "A mortal sin" is urban legend. It simply isn't true.
He doesn't suggest anything about fasting from meat on Fridays. However,
Q: Fridays during Lent are days of abstinence. What does this mean and what biblical basis is there for it?
A: A day of abstinence is a day on which Catholics fourteen years or older are required to abstain from eating meat (a food which has historically been symbolic of feasting and festivities because it could not be eaten every day in most historic cultures for economic reasons). By abstaining from this festive food on Fridays, we symbolize our sorrow for our sins on the day on which the Lord Jesus died because of our sins.
Under the current discipline in America, fish, eggs, milk products, and condiments or foods made using animal fat or meat are permitted for members of the Western Rite of the Church. Only the eating of meat itself (beef, poultry, pork, etc.) is forbidden. (However, all animal products are forbidden for members of the Eastern Rites; but, the requirement of abstinence is not mandated by law in those rites). Persons with special dietary needs can easily be dispensed by their pastor.
A biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of penance for our sins is found in the book of Daniel, where the prophet mourns over the sins of Israel:
"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . 'I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.'" (Daniel 10:1-3)
INFO: Why Catholics do what they do
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
"...In any event, the three-fold model of the priesthood which was in use at the time of Aaron was carried over into the New Testament and thus we find there also a high priest, ministerial priests, and universal priests. In the New Testament age the high priest is Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1), the ministerial priests are Christ’s ordained ministers of the gospel (Rom. 15:16), and the universal priests are the entire Christian people (1 Peter. 2:5, 9).
So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24)..."
read more here
.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
@Cassandra, there is nothing in that quote that says eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin. It's urban legend. And you are wasting your time arguing with a schismatic, every Catholic in here has theefaith on ignore.
Q: Fridays during Lent are days of abstinence. What does this mean and what biblical basis is there for it?
A: A day of abstinence is a day on which Catholics fourteen years or older are required to abstain from eating meat (a food which has historically been symbolic of feasting and festivities because it could not be eaten every day in most historic cultures for economic reasons). By abstaining from this festive food on Fridays, we symbolize our sorrow for our sins on the day on which the Lord Jesus died because of our sins.
Under the current discipline in America, fish, eggs, milk products, and condiments or foods made using animal fat or meat are permitted for members of the Western Rite of the Church. Only the eating of meat itself (beef, poultry, pork, etc.) is forbidden. (However, all animal products are forbidden for members of the Eastern Rites; but, the requirement of abstinence is not mandated by law in those rites). Persons with special dietary needs can easily be dispensed by their pastor.
A biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of penance for our sins is found in the book of Daniel, where the prophet mourns over the sins of Israel:
"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . 'I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.'" (Daniel 10:1-3)
The Pope says nothing about fasting from meat on Fridays. It's a disciplinary guideline for mortifying the flesh, (that's what fasting is for) not a commandment.
It would take a book to address each item in this list. It's a cheap shotgun tactic that proves a rigid unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.
(agreed by every Protestant denomination before the 18th century, as taught by all the early reformers.)
(agreed by every Protestant denomination before the 18th century, as taught by all the early reformers.)
True. (no one could find her body, the Assumption affirms the resurrection of all God's children)
Every king, including Jesus, had a queen, which you ignore. A queenless king would be unthinkable to any 1st century Jewish Christian.
Wrong. "A mortal sin" is urban legend. It simply isn't true.
Q: Fridays during Lent are days of abstinence. What does this mean and what biblical basis is there for it?
A: A day of abstinence is a day on which Catholics fourteen years or older are required to abstain from eating meat (a food which has historically been symbolic of feasting and festivities because it could not be eaten every day in most historic cultures for economic reasons). By abstaining from this festive food on Fridays, we symbolize our sorrow for our sins on the day on which the Lord Jesus died because of our sins.
Under the current discipline in America, fish, eggs, milk products, and condiments or foods made using animal fat or meat are permitted for members of the Western Rite of the Church. Only the eating of meat itself (beef, poultry, pork, etc.) is forbidden. (However, all animal products are forbidden for members of the Eastern Rites; but, the requirement of abstinence is not mandated by law in those rites). Persons with special dietary needs can easily be dispensed by their pastor.
A biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of penance for our sins is found in the book of Daniel, where the prophet mourns over the sins of Israel:
"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . 'I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.'" (Daniel 10:1-3)
The Pope says nothing about fasting from meat on Fridays. It's a disciplinary guideline for mortifying the flesh, (that's what fasting is for) not a commandment.
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Unless of course the false doctrine (according to scripture) is taught by tradition... Then (at least within catholicism) it become acceptable.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
In regards to only meat on Friday, or in general? It's just that I distinctly remember being taught as a child that there are venal and mortal sins.
I also still distinctly remember the fish and chip take away shops always did a roaring trade on Fridays... They were full of Catholics. Fish, for whatever reason, was never counted as 'meat'.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Nothing cheap about asking for Biblical verification for why People believe and do what they do.
Thanks for sharing, You do what other people do, You believe what you believe because others have believed it for a long time.
All of mankind has a specific purpose.
Some people’s purpose was to Speak Gods Prophecies.
Some people’s purpose was to Write Gods Prophecies.
Some people’s purpose was to Introduce men to What Prophecies had come to pass.
* Some people’s purpose was/is to Teach what WAS Written, and the Student could hear, learn, verify, according to the Writings of men,
God appointed.
* There are ALSO men whose purpose, is to Trick, Fool, men with twisted Truths, to their OWN glory. And the listening Student Eating up “THEIR” words, verifying with Different Writings, satisfactory to the Student’s MIND.
* What other men, unknown to me, follow and do, does not influence or affect me.
* Moral Sin, is true according to Scripture. Human Bodies ARE mortal, which simply means all body’s ARE subject to Die, and SHALL Die.
* And Yes, the Mortal man IS naturally born IN Sin, and Does commit Sin.
* The whole BIG PICTURE is God WHO IS SPIRIT, is offering EVERY mortal man, a WAY, to choose to HAVE his MORTAL BODY, be forgiven its SIN, and become MADE, born again, of His SEED, Prepared for transforming that MORTAL BODY, into an eternal IMMORTAL sinless body.
* Jesus didn’t come to Earth as a KING. Jesus came without His Reputation, in the Likeness as a Humbled Jewish man Servant.
* If the mans term QUEEN be a favoring term for you, that’s you.
* Scripturally, Christ (IS Jesus’ Reputation), is Preparing His BRIDE daily, as individuals daily are AGREEING, TO BE His Bride, and freely making their VOW TO “HIM”. And according to Jewish Marriage Tradition, Jesus’ BRIDE, WAITS for their Groomsman's Servant to Signal THEM; Once the signal is given that Their Groom is Coming, It is Time for the Bride to Leave their father’s house, and go to their Groom.
* Mary is not the Grooms QUEEN. Mary is the Grooms Bride, WAITING, like ALL of the Groom’s Brides, For the Servant of the Groom, to signal her TO meet her Groom; WHOLLY, holy, body, soul, spirit in the clouds of the Grooms Fathers House, prepared for the Grooms’ Father to Oversee and Bless the Prepared Holy Union of His Son and His Bride.
* Not a secret. A Bodily Dead person’s BODY, waits on Earth, For the Signal of the Groom’s Servant, that the Groom is coming for His Bride.
( The Bride, reacts with the Signal, By putting ON her WEDDING Clothes, White Gown, Veil, and leaves her fathers house, to go to meet her groom at HIS FATHER’S House, prepared for the Wedding.)
* What Title men give themselves...Catholic, Protestant, Christian, etc.
Is simply an INDICATION, of what TEACHINGS an Individual is FOLLOWING.
* Catholics verify what they believe, with THEIR book, THEIR men.
* Protesters (Protestants) verify what they believe, with the Bible, Men God chose.
* Christians are broadly divided, between FOLLOWING, Teachings, Verifications, Between Catholicism and Protestantism...
* And individuals young, new to LEARNING ABOUT the Christian Religion are Dumbfounded of the WIDE OPPOSITIONS, DIVISIONS, between;
Catholicism and Protestantism, between Catholics and Catholics, between Protestants and Protestants....and say, WHY BOTHER with the confusion and pretense.
* You CHOOSE to Follow men, Do as men, UNDER the Law, STILL WAITING for their Christ Messiah to BE REVEALED.
* I CHOOSE to ACKNOWLEDGE, the Jewish Christ Messiah, WAS REVEALED, and OFFERED me, a GENTILE, inclusion IN His Saving Grace NOW, according TO HIS WAY, by, through, of HIM.
* Your “however”, is based on OT men, still waiting for their MESSIAH to appear.
* My belief is the Prophetic teachings in the OT, regarding the MESSIAH, have already COME TO PASS...fulfilled.
Jesus’ Teaching; Do not concern yourself with what you EAT or WEAR.
Jesus’ Teaching; When you EAT and DRINK, do so in Remembrance of Him.
Matt 6:
[25] Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
1 Cor 11:
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
A 5 minute read...not what I would call a book, to address your post.
Glory to God,
Taken
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
I do that and you ignore me.
"For a long time" going back to the teachings of the Apostles, by word or letter. You believe what you believe because you are divorced from the early Church, and busy yourself covering up what the early reformers taught about Mary. Instead, you follow man made traditions (Mary a sinner, Mary had other children) that started in the 18th century that has gradually infected large segments of Protestantism. No reformer taught that diabolical garbage.
Last edited:
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,948
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Hey Backlit,
Can you name a false doctrine of The Church that is taught using tradition only?
Thanks....Mary
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,948
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thanks Ronald. You love that word presumptious[sic], don't you......:)
According to your self testimony you seem to be well read. There is no more need for you to explain how YOU come up with YOUR truth. But let's be honest here. No where at no point at any time in any manner does Scripture say that each individual Christian when they read Scripture on their own and come up with their own Truth or interpretation that their interpretation is the Truth. Scripture actually says that men that do that are unstable and are twisting Scripture to their own destruction. That is the bottom line to our discussion! I don't care how many manuscripts you read or the literal/historical/grammatical method you use, comparative studies of the sects of Christendom or about your exhaustive studies of many systematic theologies comparing them to Scripture. When you make the statement that "All churches teach false doctrine" and that "some churches teach more false doctrine than others" that shows me that YOU think that YOU know what a true doctrine is compared to a false doctrine. YOU think YOU have discovered the Truth even though you readily admit that you could change your mind on that truth in the future if someone says something to you that YOU decide is the Truth. You are clearly still searching for the Truth and I applaud you for that.
Mary
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,948
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Yup Ronald. The early Church had some major disagreements. The purpose of some of the letters in the Bible was to settle those differences! The Apostles had the authority to settle those differences. Each individual Christian was not authorized to read (hear Scripture in NT times) Scripture and decide on their own what the Apostles meant in their teaching. That is your method and it is opposite of what Scripture teaches.
There were also councils, with the first one being in Jerusalem, that decided for all Christians what to practice and they set doctrine for all Christians. Not like you practice....sitting in your living room, drinking a cup of hot cocoa and coming up with your own authoritative interpretation of Scripture by reading 800 books etc etc. Even Clement of Rome wrote letters to settle differences in The Church. Did you know that about your Christian history Ronald?
Keeping it real.....Mary
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,948
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I always enjoy hearing from you Taken. I know you are not interested in the link. But you asked for answers and I provided you the venue for those answers sooooooooooo I don't know what else to say.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Sure, I ignore, what does not apply to me, because it does not affect me.
Yes, The Apostles Spoke, Taught, Preached, The Word of God, to willing listeners.
Yes, The First to Hear the Word of God, were the Jews, IN the Temple in Jerusalem, cities, Synagogs, country sides.....and were beginning to establish buildings for eager listeners JEW and GENTILE....to come and hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in buildings established and called Churches.
Yes, Even some Gentiles were APPOINTED, by the Apostles’ as teachers, as bishops, of the newly established Churches.
And not to FORGET, the Apostles themselves were NOT ALL KNOWING!
Yes, within approx ONE DECADE of the LAST Apostles’ DEATH, early (100-110 AD)
A Bishop APPOINTED GENTILE, overseeing the Church established in Antioch, named IGNATIUS, was already Fostering ‘his ideas’ for the newly formed Church in Antioch and surrounding newly formed Churches... ABOVE AND BEYOND the Apostles’ Teaching and Preaching of the Word of God......CATHOLICISM.
Thereafter in a short span of time, Jews returned to their Synagogs, Gentiles were gathering in Churches, (without ability to read, without access to written Scripture), Listening to Gentile men, Teach and Preach “their ideas of Gods Word”, increasing, expanding, establishing, “their required doctrines, required traditions, required rituals, required books to know what their words mean, according to them”.
Factually, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. No I did not become “divorced” from Catholic Teaching. I saw it for what it was and never joined in on “their ideas”. I chose to Trust WHAT Jesus Himself taught to His Chosen Apostles, and “Their Writings”.
And IN the “Apostles” writings;
Mary was a favored woman, to Serve God;
Because she was:
A Jew, Faithful to God, A virgin, Betrothed to a Jew of the House of David, AND Agreed to Serve God in the manner of Service God required of her.
Scripture itself REVEALS, Mary, accomplished All God asked of her, in the time frame and manner God asked for her Service.
And God being a True and Faithful God BLESSED Mary for her Service.
That is a false accusation.
Even so my posts References are Scriptural.
It is yourself you describe.
Even so like many Catholics, your posts, References are from men.
I do not depend on Any century of philosophies of men spoken to men that can not read and verify for themselves, that which I can read, and readily have available to me.
Of course Mary was a sinner. She was a natural born earthling, like all other natural born earthlings, naturally born IN SIN, who commit Sin....who require a Savior to BECOME Saved.....who Continue in SIN, to the DAY they choose to SUBMIT their life to THE SAVIOR God Sent.
Did you NOT READ the Apostles’ Writings of the DAY Mary Submitted herself to BECOME SAVED “IN SCRIPTURE” ?
(Acts 1:4....Acts 2:1-4)
It is quite plain, and occurred AFTER Jesus returned to HEAVEN....not some hokey man-made (accredited to Catholics writings) timeframe of her natural birth.
Yes there are snippets in Scripture of Joseph not consummating his marriage to Mary, UNTIL after, the Babe’s birth, the Circumcising, Naming of the baby’s, the presenting of the baby to the Lord, and completion of Mary’s lawful purification time, and I fully expect both Joseph and Mary were dutiful in agreement to wait for those time frames to be fulfilled. (Approx 40 days) As Well I fully expect, Joseph and Mary both, were obedient to reproduce, multiply ( Gen. 1:28 )and fill their home with children, as God Clearly taught, and His faithful servant clearly obeyed.
* And to note Scripture does notify us, Jesus was to be Mary’s FIRST born Son... Which is indicative of and expecting at least a SECOND born son.
Snippets in Scripture of Mary with her children, called Jesus’ brother’s and sister’s ....WHICH if you know the difference between Brothers and Sisters and JOINT mother, you should know those are SIBLINGS and Brethren are Tribesmen, ALIKE by RACE, or ALIKE Believers according to CONTEXT.
But yes....Snippets about Mary, understandably so. She was not, is not, the Highlight of the New Testament.
* Jesus and His GOOD NEWS is the Highlight of the New Testament.
After all, the Tribes of ISRAEL had been waiting for 4,000 YEARS, for that Good News of Gods Christ Messiah to appear and Walk among them.
Yes Protestants recognize Mary’s Service to God, just as they recognize other people mentioned in Scripture and their Service to God, as examples of Service pleasing to God.
No Protestants do not, or agree with building, Shrines, Statues, Artworks, Trinkets, Exalt, Bow down to, Pray TO, representations of Humans that are mentioned in Scripture.
Nor, do Catholics reveal any Scriptural support for such things.
Similar threads
