As a Protestant, and one who at the least tries my best to understand the Catholic traditions, history and hierarchy that, in reality (though denied by some) has allowed development for the entirety of Christendom and the management of it in times past and present, I would say that the point of “Catholic idolatry” made by some Protestant apologists is just moot.
…
What are your thoughts on the validity of this point, if there is any at all?
Speaking as a Protestant to another Protestant, it’s commendable that you’re going out of your way to form an in-depth understanding of what informed Catholics say about Catholicism in some detail. Your conclusions are right in line with the things that such Catholics have to say about themselves, but as people who come at it from outside this particular faith tradition, I do think we have a valuable role to play in terms of raising questions that Catholics might not be willing to raise themselves. There is a natural in-group tendency (for just about any group) to be relatively good at finding your good qualities and talking about them, while being less good at asking the hard questions and doing proper self-examination. That’s where we come in, as long as we can act in good faith and not as people who wish to attack, be hurtful, and attempt to show that there are no answers to give.
With that in mind, there are a few recurring questions that I might bring up as a Protestant that a Catholic (or Orthodox Christian, if one or two of them are still looking at this thread) might not be as inclined to bring up on their own.
1- I have noticed that when I look at actual idol worshipers and people who venerate icons, some similar language is used. Certain eastern religions, in particular, involve prayer and devotion done in front of statues which represent deities of some sort, and sometimes perhaps other things which aren’t necessarily deities. The actual idol worshipers will say of course they don’t actually worship the icon, it stands in for something external to it, something beyond it to which their devotion is actually directed. No one is or ever has been stupid enough to actually worship a statue or a creation of their own hands, so if this is going to be your idea of what true idol worship exclusively is, I don’t believe such a thing properly exists. Instead, idol worship- particularly as described by those who practice it- has quite a bit in common with veneration of icons, and similar arguments are made to justify it. That’s not to say they are actually the same thing, but perhaps common elements could be more properly addressed while some of the more specific distinctions are highlighted? Imagine for a moment that an actual idol worshiper is making the argument that what they do is not wrong or bad, after all it’s so much like what Catholic and Orthodox Christians do with their veneration. (I don’t bring this up because I thought of it, I bring this up because this is something that idol worshipers actually say on a regular basis, whenever they get the chance). So what are the key differences that you would point out to such a person, and do you realistically think you could explain it to the satisfaction of an actual idol worshiper? Would this person walk away from the conversation still thinking they’re doing the same thing as you, or would there be a different thought process?
2- This next question has to do with the idea of “being different things in name only.” Less sophisticated arguments re: “veneration=worship” state that it looks wrong, seems wrong, and I wouldn’t be comfortable doing it, so it is wrong. This is a weak argument on the face of it. Moderately sophisticated arguments point to Catholic teaching that say dulia and hyperdulia go right along with latria as forms of worship, although there are distinct levels of worship. This is fairy erroneous due to the fact that these words- while certainly part of the English language- are being removed from a place of use in a different century where certain words had a different range of meaning, and they’re now being judged on their current range of meaning. It’s a misapplication of terms, and the nature of the error is more difficult to explain than the original argument against, so it can be difficult to get someone to stop using this argument. A more sophisticated argument, however, states that the distinction between latria and hyperdulia (as two examples) may be a difference in name only, and that the actual actions of the person doing the thing are absolutely not at all different from one to the other. For example, if a devout Catholic (or Orthodox Christian) was to measure their brain activity and compare their latria to their hyperdulia, or any other form of dulia, what exactly would be different in terms of what their brain is doing? What are some of the hypotheses and expectations that you’d want to form ahead of time, and how likely is it that the results would bear that out? FYI- this wouldn’t necessarily be a direct attack on Catholic doctrine, it may simply go to the likelihood that certain doctrine can be consistently and properly put into practice in the daily life of an average person.
And as a follow-up question…if this specific type of testable inquiry makes you uncomfortable, or if you think it’s totally inappropriate, why is that exactly? Again, I’m not asking with the goal of stumping the Catholics. These are questions that can be slightly difficult to answer, and I don’t think there’s too many informed/practicing Catholic or Orthodox Christians that would think of such questions or wish to pursue them on their own, but I do think there’s some value in having people around who are outside the tradition- partly because I am able to come up with these types of questions.
On a more personal note, for Hatikvah- what do you think of these general ideas, and of this type of approach?
) faith, since the majority of people were neither literate nor had any access to written Christian documents.