Another Round on the Charge of Idolatry

[Truthstalker]

You’d think Protestants would get tired of this.

Augustine, Epistle 17:5:

let me assure you that by the Christian Catholics (by whom a church has been set up in your own town also) no deceased person is worshipped, and that nothing, in short, which has been made and fashioned by God is worshipped as a divine power. This worship is rendered by them only to God Himself, who framed and fashioned all things.

I have the original as

Scias a Christianis catholicis (quorum in vestro oppido etiam ecclesia constituta est) nullum **coli **mortuorum, nihi denique ut numen adorari quod sit factum et conditum a Deo, sed unum ipsum Deum qui fecit et condidit omnia.”

I ain’t no Latin scholar, but I think them there are the verbs. And I added the bold. I thought this of interest. What does Augustine mean? Is the Church doing something today that is against the Tradition he clearly is stating? He does not restrict this to adoration, but to colere as well.

What is the Scriptural map of the word “worship”?

I looked in my little Latin dictionary that has the following for colo, a verb in the above (if I am wrong, I am sure someone will point it out!):

colo: till, cultivate, work, live in; guard, protect, honor, cherish, revere, worship; adorn, dress; to practice, folllow; to experience, live through, spend

I think then that colo is in the sense of worship, adorn, dress.

Look at Ex 20:2

According to the Septuagint, God led them out of the land of douleia (Greek: slavery), the same word today used for dulia, that is, the honor given to saints. I don’t have an LXX on line, so I will transliterate sort of:

no graven images…you shall not shall not worship (latria) nor adore (proskuneo) them…

In the Vulgate:
non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra
non adorabis ea neque coles ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filiis in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me

Look at

Acts 10:
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and **worshiped **him.
26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
25 wv de egeneto eiselyein ton petron sunanthsav autw o kornhliov peswn epi touv podav prosekunhsen
26 o de petrov auton hgeiren legwn anasthyi kagw autov anyrwpov eimi
25 et factum est cum introisset Petrus obvius ei Cornelius et procidens ad pedes **adoravit **
26 Petrus vero levavit eum dicens surge et ego ipse homo sum

Proskuneo and adorari are equivalent in translation, at least here.

Rev 22:8 and 9 has proskuneo as the verb:
Translated by adorari in the Vulgate

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to **worship **before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: **worship **God.

8 et ego Iohannes qui audivi et vidi haec et postquam audissem et vidissem cecidi ut adorarem ante pedes angeli qui mihi haec ostendebat
9 et dicit mihi vide ne feceris conservus tuus sum et fratrum tuorum prophetarum et eorum qui servant verba libri huius Deum **adora **

kai egw iwannhv o blepwn tauta kai akouwn kai ote hkousa kai ebleqa epesa **proskunhsai **emprosyen twn podwn tou aggelou tou deiknuontov moi tauta
9 kai legei moi ora mh sundoulov sou gar eimi kai twn adelfwn sou twn profhtwn kai twn thrountwn touv logouv tou bibliou toutou tw yew proskunhson

And

Acts 7:42
42 ¶ "Then God turned and gave them up to **worship **the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
42 estreqen de o yeov kai paredwken autouv latreuein th stratia tou ouranou kaywv gegraptai en biblw twn profhtwn mh sfagia kai yusiav proshnegkate moi eth tessarakonta en th erhmw oikov israhl
42 convertit autem Deus et tradidit eos servire militiae caeli sicut scriptum est in libro Prophetarum numquid victimas aut hostias obtulistis mihi annis quadraginta in deserto domus Israhel

The point being, I think, is that the difference between latria and dulia in the Bible is that God leads us out of slavery (dulia) into adoration (latria). And the ancient tradition of the church, as attested by Augustine, was that the saints were not given worship. The distinction between latria and dulia seems to be a scholastic invention and not in accordance with church Tradition.

Proskuneo literally means kiss toward: you are not to kiss toward a statue, or bow down to it, or put a crown on it, or dress it…We are not to engage in dulia to saints but latria alone. Both Peter and John record corrections when someone besides God was given worship.

 

[scylla]

It really comes down to the intent of the action. Worship for Catholics is expressed in the Catholic Mass.

If I kiss my wife am I worshipping her? If I kneel at the foot of my bed am I worshipping it? If I bow to a Japanese person am I worshipping him

Now if I kneel in front of you and verbally express thoughts that you are a god then I would worry.

But most of these charges of Idolatry are based on a presentation of Catholics engaged in worship instead of showing love.
Catholic worship is centered on the Sacrifice of Jesus in the Mass, since that is the only method of giving something worthy to God, which is Jesus. So we unite in offering Jesus and call to the present the one Sacrifice of Him on the cross for us.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Truthstalker]

Sin can be sin objectively regardless of intent. Look at Uzzah who touched the ark and died. Cornelius did not tell Peter, and John did not tell the angel, that they meant to honor, not worship, and then they got clearance to do what they did. They took their rebukes as expected.

I think there is a tie-in to an ascription of divine power to the object being worshipped, but there is a danger of accrediting the object or what it represents as being the true object of worship as opposed to worshipping God directly without an intermediate object.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sin can be sin objectively regardless of intent. Look at Uzzah who touched the ark and died. Cornelius did not tell Peter, and John did not tell the angel, that they meant to honor, not worship, and then they got clearance to do what they did. They took their rebukes as expected.

I think there is a tie-in to an ascription of divine power to the object being worshiped, but there is a danger of accrediting the object or what it represents as being the true object of worship as opposed to worshiping God directly without an intermediate object.

Yeah, but don’tcha think that we’d say we worshipped these things if we did?

The fact is that it’s bunkum…and the commandments indict adoration… When the law was read to Israel they all fell on their faces and wept. Were they worshipping Hezekiah? Of course not…

 

[antimon]

sometimes when I see some people in a church kissing a statue of Mary, I understand why we are being accused of idolatry

 

[mlchance]

sometimes when I see some people in a church kissing a statue of Mary, I understand why we are being accused of idolatry

Because ignorant people presume to judge the intentions of others?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Della]

sometimes when I see some people in a church kissing a statue of Mary, I understand why we are being accused of idolatry

Odd that you should cite such an example. It was a simple act of such devotion that helped me see that that is not worship but affection.

I was a member of the Assemblies of God, but I often went to a Catholic Church after work to sit and pray in the quiet there, surrounded by the pictures and statues and all. (I knew nothing about the Presence of Christ in the tabernacle, but I could sense his presence more in a Catholic church than in my own).

An elderly lady walked up the aisle, knelt in a pew and quietly prayed for a while. Then she got up and approached the statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (I liked to kneel close to this statue because kneeling near a representation of Our Lord was more comfortable to me than near a statue of Mary).

The lady kissed her fingertips and touched the outstretched hand of the statue, looking into it’s eyes with love and trust. I instantly understood that her devotion wasn’t for the statue but for Him who it portrayed. I didn’t convert on the spot or anything like that, but a few scales dropped from my eyes along with some bias, within my heart if not completely in my mind.

Such expressions of devotion are witnesses to our deep love for Jesus and Mary and all the Saints–those in heaven as well as those still on earth. Jesus commanded we have love for one another, loving each other as he loved us. This is just a small expression of that love.

 

[roblrich]

The contempt some show for the Catholic’s respect and honor for Mary, the Mother of God should be concerning.

I wonder how The Heavenly Father, Mary’s creator; Christ, Mary’s Son; the Holy Spirit, husband of Mary; and Mother Mary herself, Queen of Heaven will react to those when they arrive for judgement?

I wonder how they will feel about the Mother of God then?

Come to think of it, I think I’ll go pray the Rosary now.

 

[Truthstalker]

Interesting.

I think the modern Catholic concept of dulia may be closer to honor than to worship. We are commanded to “honor your father and mother” (tima ton patera sou kai thn mhtera) in Ephesians. I would submit this would include our fathers in the faith, including John, Peter, and our mothers, such as Mary and Sarah (see Hebrews 11:11 and 1 Peter 3:6 on this if you are inclined to argue) and the Church (see Gal 4:26)…

That still doesn’t solve the question posed in the OP, which hasn’t really been addressed: if God alone is to receive latria, and dulia = latria, and you have been giving anything dulia aside from God, you are in trouble. None of these statements have been contested.

 

[Reformed1]

I’m not about to accuse any of you of idolatry.

However, from the outside looking in, SOME of the…I don’t know what the term would be…say devotional practices directed toward Mary look like idolatry.

This seems to be more the case in Latin America.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey TS,

No, I’m not surprised Protestants aren’t tired of this. . .veneration of the saints is one Catholic distinctive that I think we do a very poor job of communicating properly. First, most Marian and saint veneration manifests as private devotion, so it is an easy target for outside judgement. Second, most Marian and saint defenses are just that, defense. They are reactive. And third, most Marian and saint discussions end up being a demonstration of linguisitic agility rather than actual analysis of intention and behavior.

I thought this thread would move faster than it has thus far! I’m by no means a Greek or Latin expert myself, so I have very little to offer in the way of etymology. BUT, I found this interesting treatment:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ204.HTM

You are, no doubt, looking for scholarly analysis of the latria/dulia distinction in general, but I think fundamentally the issue at hand isn’t about word derivation and biblical usage, but rather about Christian practice and the very early efforts made to defend traditional practice by creating language for clarification.

Like any word, latria and dulia are tools. The Greek Scriptural context used them as tools for a certain purpose. Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas used them as tools for another purpose. As tools, they may have various usages. Take my hammer. . .the traditional usage is to pound or drive nails. However, in my house I have a bathroom window which requires propping to remain open. I have been known to use my hammer to prop open this window. I am not denying the traditional use. Instead, I am taking my limited supply of tools and choosing the best tool for a particular job.

Is it impossible to consider that, while latria and dulia can be demonstrated to be interchangeable in certain Scriptural passages, they are simply tools used for a different purpose when distinguishing worship of GOD and veneration of saints?

 

[Truthstalker]

Were there early Christian practices of dulia? I wonder. The quote in the OP would indicate not. But Augustine is also the fellow who cites miracles that were occuring at the tomb of a saint. Hmmm. No one, some friar claimed, has read all of Augustine.

I was expecting someone to go to Augustine’s Epistle 17:5 and demonstrate that it is consistent with the modern practice of dulia, which would do things to the OP. But so far that hasn’t happened. And someone could chime in with the fact that words do change in meaning over time, and demonstrate how the Catholic concept of dulia differs from the Greek douliea. Hasn’t happened. The article in the previous post claims direct derivation, as if bondage is a good thing. Double hmmm.

I think the solution, if I were to take the Catholic position, would be to maintain that dulia and latria are not advesarial, but rather dulia is a tool to draw one into latria. I may take a master to teach me to sail, who will rap my knuckles and chew me out when I make mistakes, and praise my successes, and demand I show up at the dock at 5 AM every Saturday, and make me do push-ups, eat oranges and read books to make me a sailor, but the end is to sail for the glory of God, not to be in bondage forever to the sailing master.

Latria given to an object implies that the object itself has the power ascribed to what it represents. Latria given to God means the power is there. One can, I imagine, address a statue: silly statue, I am not talking to you, but to the one you represent, and one you represent, I am not ultimately talking to you, but to the one who made you, even God.

To employ dulia for the sake of dulia in and of itself, to use it to get a “favor” one thinks God won’t grant otherwise, like the child who, after going to Dad for a favor and Dad says no, then goes to Mom to see if she will grant the favor (knowing she heard the conversation), is wrong. Dulia as a stepping stone may be one thing but not the final.

But I’m still not satisfied.

 

[heisenburg]

As a comment on Latin forms of worship…

This is per someone that has many family members heavy in it…

Apparatly there is a very supersticious but large subset of the South American and Latin populations that take devotion to the saints to extremes. and i mean WAY over the top extremes. I dont know the spanish name for it (as he gave it) but it roughly translates to “sainthood”

When you actually look at what they are doing, its realy nothing mroe than Voodoo. This saint can cast that curse, that saint can heal this illness… etc.

Its one of those, it has all the physical trappings of Catholicism, but it is NOT Catholicism. It is not taught in Latin American Churches . It is jsut some weird blend that has become super popular in South America.

Anyway… soemone meantioned that Latin Americans borderline on idolitry. If you have seen these type of actions, then yes, it is Idoloiry, however, and i reiterate… this is NOT Catholicism.

In Christ

 

[JaneFrances]

Were there early Christian practices of dulia?

Proof of dulia among the early Church would depend on your definition of dulia, I suppose. The catacombs are among the first places I’d look to find out if the early Christians had any tradition of special veneration for the saints before them.

I was expecting someone to go to Augustine’s Epistle 17:5 and demonstrate that it is consistent with the modern practice of dulia, which would do things to the OP.

 

[Sixtus]

let me assure you that by the Christian Catholics (by whom a church has been set up in your own town also) no deceased person is worshipped, and that nothing, in short, which has been made and fashioned by God is worshipped as a divine power. This worship is rendered by them only to God Himself, who framed and fashioned all things.

Here Here

It could also be added that Catholics do not have graven images since an image to be ‘graven’ is one that is worshipped.

I possess crucifixes as they are a salutary reminder to me of teh supreme price paid for human folly and sinfulness.

When I am tempted, I remind myself of the price of my folly. It usually has a very sobering effect, thereby preventing sin.

Now if an image can prevent us from sinning, I fail to see how that can be sinful. That is a contradiction

 

[Truthstalker]

I think we can concede two things:

1. Catholicism teaches that idolatry is wrong.
2. There are Catholics that practice idolatry.

This is an old, familiar construct. One can replace the word idolatry with any other sin and the same would be true.

One can also take the approach that unless you prove to me that it is not idolatry, it is idolatry. This enchanting little lyric can be heard hummed on any number of anti-Catholic web sites. We can go down that wonderful path only to discover that it is practically impossible to prove that anything actually isn’t idolatry. For one thing, any human behavior that is not a pure act of grace probably has an element of idolatry in it. For another thing, we have made up our minds: this is idolatry, that isn’t. I like the Catholic escape from this, and that is that who am I to judge another? But if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, etc., etc…

The opposite approach is also pernicious: unless you prove to me it that it is idolatry, it is not. This allows an influx of all kinds of sinful behavior under the guise of toleration and watering down of the gospel message, syncretism and a loss of any sense of corporate holiness.

The solution is not a happy medium, but a holy Mediator. He who ate with sinners also was not contaminated by sin; He who died for them is also their judge. He calls us to follow His example. Not sure where to go from that sentence, but there is a suggestion of a path.

But an underlying theme of this thread has not been addressed, unless I have missed it, and that is the accusation that current Catholic practice is a deviation from Catholic Tradition and Scripture. If “dulia”, as currently practiced, was not condoned or encouraged in the early church and Ex. 20:2 applies, there is something wrong not at the level of practice, worshipping bedposts aside, but in the guidance of the Church from the Magisterium. I’m not sure people realize what is at stake, because there haven’t been the sort of Angry Posts that usually follow that kind of line. So if the Catholic Church is right, there is something wrong in my logic, but I don’t know where the error is. Or maybe I do and I’m just not seeing it.

Let’s hear it for the Council of Elvira, Canon 36.

 

[Alexius]

You somehow missed the broad range of the definition…You missed the actual meaning: HONOR. Honor thy father and thy mother. We (Orthodox and Catholics) honor our spiritual fathers and mothers, as did the ancient Israelites and the Church since antiquity. One of the earliest examples of this honor is the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. It is written that his bones were picked up and rescued by Christians as though they were precious gems! These bones were given proper burial and the Eucharist was celebrated over them at his funeral and every day of his remembrance.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Truthstalker]

It is written that his bones were picked up and rescued by Christians as though they were precious gems! These bones were given proper burial and the Eucharist was celebrated over them at his funeral and every day of his remembrance.

source?

 

[JaneFrances]

source?

From New Advent newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm

Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing the death of St. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that the Christians “would only abandon the Crucified One and begin to worship this man”. Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, “we took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.” This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages found a little later in the patristic writers of both East and West. Harnack’s tone in referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence which it is useless to resist. “Most offensive”, he writes, “was the worship of relics. It flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century and no Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans” (Harnack, “Hist. of Dog.”, tr., IV, 313).

From the Catholic standpoint there was no extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from the Roman Catechism would be superfluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative nature of the honour due to relics was always kept in view. Thus St. Jerome says (“Ad Riparium”, i, P. L., XXII, 907): “We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” And St. Cyril of Alexandria writes (“Adv. Julian.”, vi, P. G. LXXVI, 812): “We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos].” Perhaps no single writing supplies a more striking illustration of the importance attached to the veneration of relics in the Christian practice of the fourth century than the panegyric of the martyr St. Theodore by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 735-48). Contrasting the horror produced by an ordinary corpse with the veneration paid to the body of a saint the preacher expatiates upon the adornment lavished upon the building which had been erected over the martyr’s resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to approach the tomb “believing that to touch it is itself a sanctification and a blessing and if it be permitted to carry off any of the dust which has settled upon the martyr’s resting place, the dust is accounted as a great gift and the mould as a precious treasure. And as for touching the relics themselves, if that should ever be our happiness, only those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified can know how much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiring prayer” (col. 740).

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m sick of the charge of Idolatry by Protestants who insist that we do it. We don’t. They judge by appearance and claim to know to read the hearts of Catholics.

There is no Catholic Magisterium doctrine that allow worship of statues in the same level as God. The Center of Catholic worship is Eucharistic.

We Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The statues are there to remain us of the saints who died before us. It’s like posting a photo of your wife and kids at home.

How do you feel if I accuse you that your worship the your son, daughter, since I see you kiss the photo. In fact, I kiss photos of my families all the time. Am I guilty of idotry?

Ignorance is truly at large here.