Why is it Catholics refuse to accept the truth that they bow down to images like that of Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZesJt_8JBIg (see the Pope kissing, bowing to Mary?)
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-Catholics-refuse-to-accept-the-truth-that-they-bow-down-to-images-like-that-of-Mary-https-www-youtube-com-watch-v-ZesJt_8JBIg-see-the-Pope-kissing-bowing-to-Mary/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
- Answer requested by
- David Chord
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms
- Answered Apr 14
- Would you mind telling me where in the Bible it is forbidden to bow down to Mary or even images of Her?
I
- David Chord
- Apr 14
- Why would I do that?
If you’d like to ask your own question, you can right here on Quora!!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- Are you the guy who asked the question I answered?
Ah, it seems you were.
I don’t pose rhetorical questions very often without specific provocation, and you gave that one. I don’t feel a need to give all quorans reading my questions a disconnect on why I am asking a thing, so, that’s why I am asking you.
Now, you actually formulated it as we refuse to accept “that we bow down to images of Mary” - no, we don’t, we refuse to accept that that is a sin, for instance idolatry or any other you’d like to pretend it to be.
*mentally bowing down to a stabat mater image*
- David Chord
- Apr 15
- Now if you’d simply answered “Now, you actually formulated it as we refuse to accept “that we bow down to images of Mary” - no, we don’t, we refuse to accept that that is a sin, for instance idolatry or any other you’d like to pretend it to be.” it could have saved so much time!
a)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- I think my version was very comprehensible in that sense.
And I also think it was not the least bit more agressive than your own original question.
- David Chord
- Apr 15
- Did you forget your original response was to ask a question?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- Not the least.
Rhetorical question for rhetorical question.
b)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- And I also also think, if you disagree, the onus of proof is on you, as being the accuser.
That’s a good beginning on why I asked the counterquestion.
For instance, if you were thinking of Exodus 20, the Blessed Virgin, like Our Lord Himself, is not a “strange god” and “images” are not a separate commandment from such, and “bow down to them” refers to “strange gods and images of strange gods” - not to God or the things that pertain to God.
- David Chord
- Apr 15
- You seem to be getting confused!
What did my question “accuse” of? …. Catholics refuse to accept the truth that Catholics bow down to images!
The PROOF was in the video and is further proven by the responses of some Catholics here who deny bowing to images.
If you read more into the question than was asked that isn’t my problem… you should stick to the question!
..but while you’re here… let’s go on one step toward where you thought the question was directed and ask… “Are you saying that it’s not possible for some Catholics to idolize such statues and images, even in the tiniest way?”
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- “Catholics refuse to accept the truth that Catholics bow down to images!”
When, where and how?
I refuse to accept the non-truth that Catholics bow down to idolatrous or sinful images.
That should be the default for any Catholic.
If you claim “Catholics” (so to speak in general) “refuse to accept the truth that Catholics bow down to images” you need to show me at least one who does so. Otherwise you are accusing us of being so ill-instructed as to take “bowing down to images” as a separately banned item in the commandments and trying to dodge the then obvious accusation.
“The PROOF was in the video”
Technically not, since Antipope Bergoglio is not a Catholic.
“nd is further proven by the responses of some Catholics here who deny bowing to images.”
Ah, which ones?
- David Chord
- Apr 15
- Sorry I’m done with your ridiculous nonsense and your done posting here too.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- “further proven by the responses of some Catholics here who deny bowing to images.”
Yolanda Bello didn’t do that. Lek Kodra didn’t do that. Steve Green didn’t do that. Domnhall, Charles Happold, Melissa B, so who?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- David Chord pretended I was done posting “here” - under my own post.
[had to use separate thread, though, not under his comment]
II
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apr 15
- Other question, why do you ask me about the guy you presumably mean by “the Pope”? I have no qualms about anti-Pope Bergoglio bowing down to Mary, but he does a lot of other things, those ones really un-Catholic, for the sake of which he is an antipope.
If you had a video with Pope Michael bowing down to Mary, I’d be able to unite myself to his prayer!
- The following,
- III and IV, are outside the comment section, in this blog post.
III
As David Chord seems to have edited, unless I missed, here is an added question of his and my answer:
..but while you’re here… let’s go on one step toward where you thought the question was directed and ask… “Are you saying that it’s not possible for some Catholics to idolize such statues and images, even in the tiniest way?”
That is irrelevant. It is one question if for instance an icon painter thinks of his painting process as above morality or doctrine, which would examplify the said, and another question totally if the normal use of images is normally idolatry.
IV
It can be noted that this exchange was one of the things that expired before that evening and morning, offered a meal too much on Good Friday evening, rejected it an extra time on Holy Saturday morning, asked the guy to leave, started shoving him to make him do so, he didn't, he ended up kicking my head. I still bear the sequels. I am not saying he was the guy. I am wondering if he could have made some aggressive remarks about me before a band of gipsies and the guy be one of them. Not sure. If he's a shrink and posing as my shrink, that could be why the police and the doctors at Hôtel-Dieu messed things up.
Here is another of those things:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Analysing a Long Tirade by Jordan Peterson
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/04/analysing-long-tirade-by-jordan-peterson.html
- Q
- Can a Catholic take communion from an Orthodox or Protestant Church if there is no Catholic Church in their region?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-Catholic-take-communion-from-an-Orthodox-or-Protestant-Church-if-there-is-no-Catholic-Church-in-their-region/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
- Answer requested by
- David S Ashirov
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms
- Answered Fri
- From a Protestant Church? No and noper.
From an Orthodox one, well at least some people back in the times of Pius XII said so. When I became Palmarian (I now adher to Pope Michael) and did no longer go to Mass in the Novus Ordo parish, the curate told me to approach the orthodox, and he was an old man who had been in seminary in those days.
Reason for distinction : Protestant communions are definitely invalid. Possible exception, some High Church Anglicans if they got orders from Antiochene Orthodox, but not sure they haven’t already converted to Orthodox.
- David Chord
- Fri
- Hi Hans
That’s not true!
A Catholic definitely could take communion in a Protestant church but probably wouldn’t because they don’t believe the Protestant clergy have the voodoo to turn the emblems in the real body and blood of Christ!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sat
- I meant “can” in the sense of licitly or even illicitly but at least reasonably.
You definitely make my point.
A Catholic can neither licitly nor even with reasonable bypassing of laws take a communion from someone considering sacraments of Christ as voodoo.
- David Chord
- Sat
- Actually what you meant was that according to CATHOLIC teaching …..
The reality is that some Catholics don’t hold to the very Catholic teaching that teaches they should not!
…or would you like to say that there are no Catholics who feel they able to fellowship and join Protestants in communion!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sat
- I would say, such people are either very misinformed about Protestantism or no longer real Catholics, even if they have not left the Church in the paperwork.
- David Chord
- Sat
- You can say what you like, but the Catholic Church teaches they are still Catholic even if they are lapsed, in error or in sin!
Making up the doctrine of “real Catholics” isn’t even Catholic!
You might not like it but it’s the truth!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sat
- OK, document, please?
- David Chord
- Sat
- What document do you require?
The one that says there is no doctrine of “real Catholic”?
or
The one that says Catholics are still Catholics even if they are lapsed, in error or in sin?
If the former, I suggest you dig out the document because the claim is yours and if you don’t have any Catholic documentation then the doctrine isn’t Catholic it’s yours!
If the later, I could dig out many different notable Catholics who have made this exact point over the years but you would dismiss them as non-doctrinal just comments from individuals… but it really doesn’t matter. You only need to read the whole Catechism to know that there is a strict mechanism by which a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic and in absence of that, they remain a Catholic… Do you not read the Catechism?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sat
- What Catechism do you refer to?
The one of Pope St. Pius X doesn’t seem to match this statement of content …
Yes, by accepting knowingly and pertinaceously either a heresy or a wholesale rejection of faith in Jesus Christ, you cease being a Catholic.
This would involve no longer believing Catholic sacramental theology. If it’s about “Lutherans accept the real presence” then it’s misinformation about Protestants, since this doesn’t mean they accept real sacrifice of the Mass.
I did state there were an alternative to not being real Catholics, right?
- David Chord
- Sat
- You seem to be confusion Catholic opinion with official doctrine!
Was Pope St. Pius X speaking ex-cathedra? NO!
It’s funny how Catholics run to their “official” doctrine to deny many mistakes in their teachings and their behaviour through history, to make the claim these were just individual errors and in like manner skirt the problems of many popes, yet when it suits they’ll quote individuals to make claims that are just not born out by “official” doctrine!
So let’s be clear the doctrine of “real Catholics” isn’t “official” and, therefore, isn’t real!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sun
- It so happens, a not very katolik katekism of a not very katolik kirk is not an official document of the Church where St. Peter was the first pope.
Furthermore, the so called CCC is not even pretending to be speaking ex cathedra either.
It’s like comparing the orders of the Kommandatur in Paris 1941 to an order from the legitimate Préfecture in 1939.
Also, there are different levels of “official” and neither Catechism makes it to top level if both were unrealistically pretended to be Catholic, while they contradict each other so much.
The Catechism of St. Pius X was official enough not just for the diocese of Rome as well as all of Italy, it was also officially translated into French and in general use up to the infamous apostatic Pierres vivantes. That’s official enough for me while I am in France.
3 Q. Who is a true Christian?
A. A true Christian is he who is baptised, who believes and professes the Christian Doctrine, and obeys the lawful pastors of the Church.
Since the people you mention do not believe and profess the Christian doctrine of Transsubstantiation and Real and Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, they are not true Christians, even as per the preliminary lesson.
Catechism of St. Pius X | EWTN
The same applies for those who wrote “Catechism of the Catholic Church” very ill so named. As they are not Christians, they are not pastors of the Church, and as they are not pastors of the Church, they cannot issue any catechism that is binding on Catholics.
I haven’t read the “CCC” paragraph you refer to, but as you describe it, it sounds very self serving, since that procedure for calling someone non-Catholic is inapplicable to those intruders. Before that was written (and I was already out of Novus Ordo then!) Antipopes “Paul VI, John Paul II” had more than once been called non-Catholics and intruders.
And anyone who can type a sentence of the general form "the doctrine of x isn’t “official” and, therefore, isn’t real!" is very ill equipped to discuss Catholicism.
Same applies to your blasphemous comparisons to voodoo, by which you make yourself with Calvinism, a non-Christian sect and arguably one of the four heads of the leopard - get out of that beast, for my part I am already out of the slut that’s ecumenc with it!
- David Chord
- Sun
- Only in the CCC….. that’s the Confused Catholic Church could there be levels of “official” doctrine. I have to assume that the CCC believers Christ was equally confused in teaching different levels of doctrine!
…and whilst you’re here arguing what is and is not “official” doctrine you might like to publicly accept that there is not universal acceptance of YOUR position within Catholic clergy never mind the laity ! I know you’ll perform some magnificent feat of mental gymnastics to deny this reality and whilst it will be amusing to see it, I think my point is made!
blasphemous comparisons to voodoo… you may not like the comparison but since you believe in a priests magical powers, gained only on confirmation and lost only when defrocked or resigned, I think it a perfectly fair comparison! What is highly amusing is that in your ignorance you seem to indicate that not believing the magic powers of a Catholic priest and comparing to voodoo must mean the person is a Calvinist! Frankly, that’s just ignorant!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 15 min. ago
- You do not know what voodoo is.
A Novus Ordo priest (whom I do not without reservations consider as Catholic) was teaching, as Docent in Latin, Aeneid VI. There we see the sibyl of Cumae, and that is how a seance with a voodoo medium for the spirits they worship go too.
In US, there is a difference between federal law and state law. Those are different levels of official. There is also a difference between simple law and amendments to the constitution, again different levels of official.
In the Catholic Church, a catechism doesn’t make it to the highest level of official (that would be the declaration of a dogma and just above even that, the Bible, all 73 books), it is nevertheless official enough to be not taken as a merely private opinion.
And while Catechism of St. Pius X was not translated to every language and is therefore not “federal law” or “state law in all states” it is accessible in French and original Italian and therefore “state law” in dioceses of Italian and French language.
You prefer CCC because it’s federal? Fine, there is a real “federal” catechism too, Roman Catechism by order of the Council of Trent.
Tridentine Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- [linked to this, omitting hisresponse which is a multitopics single link.]
- continued:
- David Chord
- 21h ago
- Wonderful… take the term “voodoo” literally! I’ll make a note and from this point form call it “magic”
Also thank you so much for making it clear that there is federal law, state law, confused law, dogma, doctrine and catechism that varies around the world!
Now if you could only explain why Catholics claim to be united in faith whilst having so many differences and which of those interpretations has “apostolic succession”!! Any reply that does not require cognitive dissonance accepted!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- An interpretation does not have “apostolic succession” it has or has not “apostolic tradition”. It’s bishops who, if validly consecrated, have apostolic succession, as have the priests they validly ordain.
As your citations on doctrinal flip flops notes, or the first of them, here:
"Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
This means, the one given in CCC and cited by you does not have apostolic tradition. This means, CCC was not issued by a legitimate papacy.
Magic as you here use it does not amount to the Biblical sin of sorcery.
