I am a Mary worshipper

[Axion]

“The whole point was that outsiders could easily view our treatment of the saints and Mary just like the treatment pagan people give to their (false) gods and goddesses. So as some people understand the word “god”, they are.”

No. Because Pagans adore their gods, make sacrifices to them, and spend 100% of their worship time, offering worship to them. Contrast this with a Catholic or Orthodox service where 90-98% of the services of worship are devoted to and centred on God the Holy Trinity, and very little is devoted to Mary and the Saints. A Catholic mass is centred on the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the sacrificial redemption. There are sometimes separate devotions where Mary and the Saints are honoured, but solely for their work in God’s service.

Yes, because the pagan gods are not concieved as being on the same level, even by the pagans themselves, as our One God. There gods are fallible creatures, born of other gods. Our God is the Supreme Being.

Many Hindus see all their gods as being manifestations of the one God. Even where they do not, the pagan gods are deities with a totally different origin to humans. Pagan gods demand worship for themselves, because they are gods with divine power and authority.

But seeing as are our Saints are elevated humans in heaven…they are practically like Hercules or some other hero raised to godhood (lower-case g)

Just because Saints are in heaven, does that mean they are “raised to godhood”? If so, then the angels too must be gods!

Do we have “gods” as many would understand the word? Yes, we have what are equivalent to gods, we just call them Saints.
What the pagans do to their gods, is the same thing we do to our Saints. They are not offering their gods latria (which we now call worship, or more properly “adoration”)…they are only offering their gods dulia, or “veneration”.

No. There is a big difference. You are making a major error about the difference between **dulia ** and latria. Pagans worship their gods with **divine worship ** (latria). They make sacrifices of animals and foods, they praise them for their divinity and ask them to use their divine power to benefit them. **Pagan gods do their own will. ** Christians do not offer sacrifices to Saints, they praise them for their example and service to God, they ask the Saints to join in their prayers to God. **Saints do not do their own will, but do the will of God. ** That is the basic difference.

 

[Deus_Vult]

Axion:

No. Because Pagans adore their gods, make sacrifices to them, and spend 100% of their worship time, offering worship to them. Contrast this with a Catholic or Orthodox service where 90-98% of the services of worship are devoted to and centred on God the Holy Trinity, and very little is devoted to Mary and the Saints. A Catholic mass is centred on the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the sacrificial redemption. There are sometimes separate devotions where Mary and the Saints are honoured, but solely for their work in God’s service.

Many Hindus see all their gods as being manifestations of the one God. Even where they do not, the pagan gods are deities with a totally different origin to humans. Pagan gods demand worship for themselves, because they are gods with divine power and authority.

Just because Saints are in heaven, does that mean they are “raised to godhood”? If so, then the angels too must be gods!

No. There is a big difference. You are making a major error about the difference between **dulia **and latria. Pagans worship their gods with **divine worship **(latria). They make sacrifices of animals and foods, they praise them for their divinity and ask them to use their divine power to benefit them. **Pagan gods do their own will. **Christians do not offer sacrifices to Saints, they praise them for their example and service to God, they ask the Saints to join in their prayers to God. **Saints do not do their own will, but do the will of God. **That is the basic difference.

Yes…Yes…and Yes again. Thank you for clarifying this for batteddy. I couldnt have said it better myself.

 

[batteddy]

“Pagans worship their gods with **divine worship **(latria).”

THAT is what I question.

Do they?

Do they offer their gods latria?

Do they recognize their gods as self-existent, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, or perfect beings?

Would they equate their gods with our God? Or would they see our god as being on an entirely different, and higher, level from their idea of “gods”?

The Catholic encyclopedia has this to say about Divine Adoration (latria):

“Adoration differs from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence.”

“In the strict sense, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him.”

Do the pagans recognize their gods as infinitely perfect? As being the sustainers of existence itself? As being transcendentally excellent?

If not, they are not offering latria…but only some sort of strange dulia.

And I don’t think the pagans recognize their gods as perfect beings (obviously, their myths speak of them being finite and subject to human passions, etc). And in this way, they do NOT offer their gods latria. Their gods are concieved of on a lower level then our God.

“The Roman Catholic Church does not believe or even compare Saints to “gods” this is heresy”

The Saints are obviously not “pagan gods”.

As was said, the pagan gods have their own power and act as free agents doing their own will…but niether are they equated as being Perfect Beings on the same level of our God.

Of course our Saints are different from that.

All I’m saying is that in our religion, the thing that is roughly analogous to “gods” is Saints.

Of course their are differences…just like their are major differences between Animal sacrafices and the Sacrafice of the Mass. But they are still roughly equivalent and analogous.

Our Saints are not “pagan gods”*. *Obviously. But I think it is the “pagan” part which more differentiates them than the “gods” part.

All I’m saying, is that the place in the human heart once occupied by the gods…is in Catholicism occupied by the Saints.

They are clearly not exactly the same. There are important differences. But the level of glory once given to the gods, is roughly equivalent to that given to the Saints (dulia)

Whereas an entirely new order of worship (latria) is given to the One True God.

Do you sort of understand where I’m coming from?

Trust me, I’m a very orthodox Catholic.

This is not a religious point I am questioning. I know the Saints are infinitely below our God.

I am questioning a point of terminology, and analogical comparison to pagan religion. And we should not be ashamed to admit our Saints and Angels roughly are analogous in the level we give them to the gods of old. They aren’t the same, but they are roughly equivalent. Because God has a level all to his own that the pagan never had.

 

[steve99]

You can quote dictionary definitions as much as you like, but that is not the point. Its how a word will be understood in common usage that is important if we are trying to shed light and understanding on an issue.
The word “gay” used to mean (and still does according the my Collins Concise DIctionary) “carefree and merry” or “brighly coloured” as well as a homosexual, but now in common usage there is only one meaning to calling a man or woman “gay”.
Again pray is usually taken to mean praying to God, but a secondary meaning (and I think old usage) it means to beg or implore. So in that sense we pray to Mary and the saints, but to use it in that way it to leave ourselves open to being misunderstood, and causing confusion.
Let’s leave using language to obscure our meaning to the politicians. They are better at it anyway!

 

[BibleReader]

Donna P:

Please quit with this please. To worship anyone other than God is to commit a serious sin. Thou shalt not put false god before Me.

We do NOT worship Mary, Mary does NOT want us to worship her.
Please buy the Catholic Answers Beginning Apologetice book on Defending Mary.

YOu do Catholics a HUGE disservice by calling yourself Catholic and saying we worship Mary. To do so shows a disregard for our Church and Jesus teachings.:nope:

Whatever it is we do, toward Mary, is approved in Scripture: Revelation 12:6 and 12:14 describes how the Woman who was the mother of the boy who would shepherd the nations with an iron rod, Christ, would go to “a special place…prepared for her by God” in the “desert,” the Biblical type, or symbol, for “the world in need of salvation.” Since she did so with “two” wings of a great eagle, Revelation 12:14, where “two” is the Biblical type, or symbol, for “the Church,” then WE are the special place prepared for her. I.e., Marian veneration is a mark of the true Church!

 

[auhsoj88]

This whole discussion is going in circles and everybody seems to be talking past each other!

400 years ago, it was pretty evident that the old english word “worship” meant to honor. 400 years ago, it would deem OK to use “worship” to address the honor Catholics give to Mary. In fact, under the old definition, alot of things were “worshiped”. Worship was given by the entire populace to kings, magistrates, nobles, judges, parliament, etc…Worship meant to honor, which included ones own parents too.

Judges were refered to as “your worship”, today we say “your honor”. I am sure that a lot of old Catholic documents may still infact say “worship” to describe honor due to those Christians (saints) that are now glorified in Christ!

I agree with what RacerX is trying to say, however times have changed including words and to use “worship” in the contexts of todays meaning would be misleading and dangerous for those souls that may have interest in the truth of Gods Church!

God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JimG:

I kind of like the idea.

Actually there was a perfectly good Catholic book published some time ago called “The Worship of Mary.” I don’t remember the author.

And wasn’t the queen of England at one time referred to as “Your Worship?”

No ​

No need to fear the word “worship.” Do we worship Mary more than we do the Queen of England, or Britney Spears, or Tom Cruise? Hopefully, yes. Do we give to God an entirely higher order of worship? Of course.

The trouble with saying we “worship” Mary is, that we would be putting a stumbling-block before other Christians - there is plenty of misunderstanding as it is, without more being added intentionally.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“Pagans worship their gods with **divine worship **(latria).”

THAT is what I question.

Do they?

Do they offer their gods latria?

Do they recognize their gods as self-existent, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, or perfect beings?

ANE gods (at least) were born of other gods, and had the usual human frailties. Zeus did not need to be self-existent or eternal or omniscient, any more than Baal or Isis needed to. They still counted as deities, because deities was not reckoned of metaphysically, but functionally.​

Being created, born, subject to the emotions, morally defective from a Christian POV, and dying, are all perfectly compatible with being a god. Gods can’t be understood properly if they are measured by standards alien to them - so the foul temper and cruelty of Ishtar, the mortality of Dumuzi, the ignorance shown by the God of Israel, and the uninhibited morals of Zeus or Poseidon, do not stop them being gods.

To be a god, one has to belong to the realm of the holy and numinous - the demoness Lilith does: therefore, Lilith is a deity (if one of minor rank). Ishtar,a major goddess of war, sexuality and love, belongs to the same realm: so is also a goddess. Being morally irreproachable, or metaphysically eternal or unique, don’t matter to being a god. That was not how people conceptualised gods in the ANE. The uniqeness of God was something that was realised only after God had been worshipped by the Chosen People for a long time: it was not a starting-point, for them, but something that was realised only after a long time, through much suffering. ##

Would they equate their gods with our God? Or would they see our god as being on an entirely different, and higher, level from their idea of “gods”?

“Yes” to the first question, probably “no” to the latter​

The Catholic encyclopedia has this to say about Divine Adoration (latria):

“Adoration differs from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence.”

“In the strict sense, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him.”

Do the pagans recognize their gods as infinitely perfect? As being the sustainers of existence itself? As being transcendentally excellent?

If not, they are not offering latria…but only some sort of strange dulia.

The article has God-as-revealed-in-Christ in mind, not the gods, religious experiences or ideas of the Gentiles in general. An article about Mesopotomian or Hittite religion, say, would read very differently​

And I don’t think the pagans recognize their gods as perfect beings (obviously, their myths speak of them being finite and subject to human passions, etc). And in this way, they do NOT offer their gods latria. Their gods are concieved of on a lower level then our God.

Not necessarily We think of ontological perfection as inseparable from the notion of “being God”. The ancients did not - it’s an abstract and late idea, not concrete and specific; ANE religion is seldom abstract, and usually very concrete. As is the OT, indeed: the starting point is not, “What is the metaphysical definition of a god?”, but, “What is this being by which I am confronted ?” In fact, the real starting-point is man’s awareness of being confronted by a Something that compels his homage: it need not even be encountered as personal - it need only be numinous, sacred, “other than man”. That has to be borne in mind, if we are to understand their ideas about their gods.​

“The Roman Catholic Church does not believe or even compare Saints to “gods” this is heresy”

The Saints are obviously not “pagan gods”.

Though Mary would make a very good Astarte or Isis ​

As was said, the pagan gods have their own power and act as free agents doing their own will…but niether are they equated as being Perfect Beings on the same level of our God.

Of course our Saints are different from that.

[snip]

 

[tuopaolo]

All worship, of whatever degree mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the opening post, is ultimately oriented towards God, regardless of whom it is immediately focused on or directed to. To honor a saint is not separate from honoring God. To honor a saint is to honor God. Failing to realize this fact causes us to at once fail to see the glory of the saints and also the grandeur of the good God. It is similiar to the relative veneration given to an icon or the Cross (such as is done on Good Friday) – when one honors the Cross in this way, one is not doing something separate from honoring Jesus: rather to honor the Cross in this way is to honor Jesus – the honoring of the Cross is the means and a constituent part of one’s honoring of Jesus. Likewise, the honoring of the saints is a means also a constituent part of one’s honoring of God. Using the common word “worship” to designate the common genus of cultus (which is the Latin that is used of the honor given to God directly as well as the honor given to the saints), has as its great advantage making it clear that it is a common genus and also making it more apparent that while the three degrees of worship are “separate” or distinct that at the same time oriented with one purpose towards the Triune God as the saints are but living icons of His hidden glory. It also has the advantage of being more faithful to the Latin which is the official language of the Church and used often in her teaching documents.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says in another article that directly bears on some of the discussion in this thread (I’ve only read a few posts in this thread, but I think I got the gist of it):

newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

“Lastly something must be said about Catholic principles concerning the worship of sacred images. The Latin Cultus sacrarum imaginum may quite well be translated (as it always was in the past) “worship of holy images”, and “image-worshipper” is a convenient term for cultor imaginum – eikonodoulos, as opposed to eikonoklastes (image-breaker). Worship by no means implies only the supreme adoration that may be given only to God. It is a general word denoting some more or less high degree of reverence and honour, an acknowledgment of worth, like the German Verehrung (“with my body I thee worship”) in the marriage service; English city companies are “worshipful”, a magistrate is “Your worship”, and so on. We need not then hesitate to speak of our worship of images; though no doubt we shall often be called upon to explain the term.”

This is the advice given with respect to the cultus given to images (which is of a relative kind in that it does not terminate with the image but extends to the person represented in the image just as when one honors a photo of a loved one by kissing it, one is not merely honoring the photo, but primarily honoring the one represented in the photo) and it applies a fortiori with respect the cultus given to the saints.

Note how the author recognizes that we will “often be called upon to explain the term.” I think the author’s approach is the best. One shouldn’t change the language of one’s religion to make it more palatable to others and try to downplay aspects that may seem objectionable to others. Rather, ISTM, one ought to preserve the language of one’s religion and explain unfamiliar or misunderstood terms when necessary and instead of downplaying aspects in order to make it acceptable to the views of heretics or pagans, correct the understanding of heretics and pagans so as to lift their minds, and hopefully with the Holy Spirit, united with His Spouse, the Blessed Virgin, their hearts to the truth which God has seen fit to reveal.

I fully expect that one day that some will seek to not refer to the Mass as a Sacrifice, not refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass and will try to say that we ought not use the word “sacrifice” as the meaning of the word has changed and that we ought to downplay the aspect of “sacrifice” and concentrate on the aspect of “meal” and “community” so as to make this all more palatable (no pun intended) and acceptable to non-Catholics such as Protestants … Wait… That has already happened. Then I guess I fully expect that one day someone will come along and say that we shouldn’t say that “Jesus is God” or that the phrase “Jesus is God” is open to misinterpretation or that whether “Jesus is God” is a true statement depends on what one means … Wait… That too has already happened (Karl Rahner did that). Let’s try to break from Karl Rahner et al’s footsteps.

 

[JimG]

Gottle of Geer:

The trouble with saying we “worship” Mary is, that we would be putting a stumbling-block before other Christians - there is plenty of misunderstanding as it is, without more being added intentionally.

I have to agree. After reading the posts here, I’m convinced.

Protestants already think that Catholics draw too many distinctions. Catholics think that Protestants draw too few. When Catholics generate this much heat over word definitions, it’s time to just get back to common usage, and leave the distinctions to theological journals.

 

[JimG]

tuopaolo:

I fully expect that one day that some will seek to not refer to the Mass as a Sacrifice, not refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass and will try to say that we ought not use the word “sacrifice” as the meaning of the word has changed and that we ought to downplay the aspect of “sacrifice” and concentrate on the aspect of “meal” and “community” so as to make this all more palatable (no pun intended) and acceptable to non-Catholics such as Protestants … Wait… That has already happened.

Yes, that has already happened, and it’s one trend that needs to be reversed. Perhaps with the Mass it has been a case of de-emphasizing the Sacrifice. Yet that is the most important aspect of the Mass. Maybe it is being reversed.

 

[cheddarsox]

Axion:

No. It is all to do with INTENTION. God is the divine One. Mary is a humble servant of God, whose intercession we seek. Mary does the will of God and joins in our prayers - as has already been described.

People bring gifts, sacrifices, prayers (entreaties), homage and tears to Kings and Governors. (Sometimes even to minor beureacrats and bosses). Does that make these people gods? No. You are just sowing mischief.

I’m sorry. You are just trying to abuse and cause scandal. If you were ever a catholic, you obviously had no idea whatsoever about the faith you were (temporarily and nominally) part of.

Exactly WHERE and WHEN did you supposedly see people “crying, singing, throwing themselves face down before her statue, parading her statue about, crowning it with flowers, etc.”??

Or is the truth that you are just throwing in various devotional practices ast different times and are conflating and exagerating them as much as possible in order to cause offense and scandal?

In my parish, it was called May Crowning. I didn’t make it up, and I am not exagerating the practice.
I have no interest in calling or creating any gods. I am only pointing out that such practices look, and feel like worship to the practitioners. Giving a thing worship does not turn it into a god. It does not change the nature of the thing being worship, it changes the nature of the worshipper. I don’t believe that God warned His followers not to worship others because it would harm Him. I think He did so because He knew it would be bad for His followers.

I was not nominally a Catholic. I was baptised, raised and received all the sacrament of the faith. I attended Catholic school for 12 years and seriously considered entering a religious order.

The practice I described was our Church’s annual May Crowning, and that is an accurate description of it. I have seen videos of other such practices concerning relics etc. If these things cause mischief and scandal, and I agree that they do, then perhaps the church should take a closer look at them.

I think it is very difficult for many not to get caught up in the fervor of these events. I think the emotions can easily overcome the original intent and lead the practitioners to fall into worship.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

itsjustdave1988:

There were some Christians who began to worship Mary as though she were divine (called Collyridians), and they were rebuked by St. Epiphanius in his treatise against heretics in the 4th century.

See the following This Rock article by Patrick Madrid,
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410hotm.asp

I fear some of them may need rebuking again…

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

On the subject of pagan deity. Since most Catholics would consider any religion that honors deity other than the One Triune God to be pagan, that is throwing many thousands of traditions into one stew pot.

Some pagan deities are honored and venerated humans. Heros and ancestors that have acheived a high level of honor, rather like saints.

for other pagan religions, they see their various deities as faces of one supreme being, a way in which the immense, unknowable divine allows itself to interact with humans.

Still other pagans do have a concept of a divine with no beginning, no end, and who is omnipotent.

The variety of worship is just as varied. Prayer, ritual, sacrafice, emotion, gifts, etc are offered according to tradition, and the devotion of the practitioner.

Simple comparisons cannot be made across the board, because of the immense number and varieties of religions out there. Some of them do have elements that appear to be parellel to elements of Catholicism, but many are so different, that simple comparisons are meaningless.

I do think that the comparisions drawn above do have some validity, they accurately represent the parallels between Catholicism and some polytheistic faiths.

However, there are pagans that practice latria, and some to a supreme deity, not unlike the Catholics would give to God.

cheddar

 

[batteddy]

Which is exactly why we must carefully consider what comparisons can be drawn when talking to Protestants. We must make sure terminology is understood, and that analogies are valid.

My point is not to try to get Saints called gods or anything.

Its trying to start a discussion about how much of our terminology is just to appease the protestants, what comparisons should we (carefully) not deny, and what clarifications must be made regarding some of our practices which MAY be validly comparible to pagan religions.

I see people here, for a while (up at the beginning of the thread, and especially in the middle) were so wound up about the whole “saint worship” and “saints like gods” comparisons and terminology that they wouldn’t even discuss it or conceed valid points. It was just “Shut up, you fools, thats not what we teach. Protestants might be listening and it would be so embarrassing if they saw us admitting we are a little bit like pagans. Quiet! It’s veneration, thats all!”

When discussing with Protestants, should we really just adamantly deny that our Saints are like the “pantheon of Greek gods” (a common accusation) and try to just play word games?

I think not. We should answer that accusation by saying: “Well, sort of, maybe. But let’s discuss what you mean by ‘gods’ and what we really mean by Saints and see what parts are comparable and what is different.” Instead of just churning out the same cookie-cutter line about “its just honor paid to really good friends of God who can pray to him in heaven for us…”.

Real philosophical dialogue and questioning is a lot more productive than such one-liners. Gets them to think a lot more and follow your logic than saying “No, its only veneration and they are only people we honor highly”…

That’s all I’m saying. We should CAREFULLY allow some of their common accusations and comparsions…but draw what distinctions we need to, and use the comparison as a starting point for discussions on, for example, what they think “worship” means and what they think makes it different than the honor paid to creatures, and why they think some things are reserved for God…etc…

 

[scm]

"We are not to worship gods with little “g’s either. That is right in the Bible.”

Actually, we do. At least we should. I agree, let’s stop playing the symantics game to appease the Protestants.

(but I did read it… )

You must be using the word “we” in some other sense too, since I do not worship gods. Oh and I’m not Protestant either, but I do understand what the common usage of the word “worhsip” is.

We have a divine nature, but will never be gods.

"You shall have no other gods before [besides] me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Our God is an exclusive and jealous God. We are not to have other gods, period.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

"Worship" also used to connote “honor” in the Bible…

In Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: “‘Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakah] me.’”

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakah] you (49:8).”

And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent.”

So you see, English usage of these words have been narrowed by modern day Protestantism, however, that was not always the case.

There was a papal document that I found one time on the Vatican website which used the word “worship” for Mary, but now I can’t find it. I think the Vatican changed the translation to “devotion.” Nonetheless, one ought to be prepared to explain the connotation of “honor” used for the word “worship” in the context that Catholicism has used in the past, which Scripture itself uses for this word “worship.”

 

[scm]

“Worship” also used to connote “honor” in the Bible…

snip

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakah] you (49:8).”

snip

Ok, I don’t know which translation you are using, and I realize that this is a Catholic forum, but I use the New International Version. It is a modern translation into modern English. In the quote above instead of “worship” it says “bow down”. In the Hebrew, the word is: “Shachah” and its meaning is “to bow down”. Also interesting to note is the King James Version, noted for the fact it is a translation into archaic English also says “bow down”.

To bow down is to yield, not worship.

[edit, I’ve added the definiton of “bow” here]
The dictionary.com definition that applies here is for “bow” and is:
To incline the body or head or bend the knee in greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration.

Note, it does not say, an act of worship.

In fact, all of the various bibles found on biblegateway.org that I looked at say “bow down”. I suppose you could say, “these are all Protestant Bibles”, but I’m not sure how you can argue with the meaning of the original Hebrew word.

oops, I just checked a Catholic online Bible., it says “bow down” too, so I am realy at a loss for where you got this? Which one did you use?

I’ve already discussed the meaning of the word worship, so I wont continue there.

 

[scm]

scm:

Ok, I don’t know which translation you are using, and I realize that this is a Catholic forum, but I use the New International Version. It is a modern translation into modern English. In the quote above instead of “worship” it says “bow down”. In the Hebrew, the word is: “Shachah” and its meaning is “to bow down”. Also interesting to note is the King James Version, noted for the fact it is a translation into archaic English also says “bow down”.

To bow down is to yield, not worship.

[edit, I’ve added the definiton of “bow” here]
The dictionary.com definition that applies here is for “bow” and is:
To incline the body or head or bend the knee in greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration.

Note, it does not say, an act of worship.

In fact, all of the various bibles found on biblegateway.org that I looked at say “bow down”. I suppose you could say, “these are all Protestant Bibles”, but I’m not sure how you can argue with the meaning of the original Hebrew word.

[oops, I just checked a Catholic online Bible., it says “bow down” too, so I am realy at a loss for where you got this? Which one did you use?

I’ve already discussed the meaning of the word worship, so I wont continue there.

I have to add. One shade of the meaning of Shachah, is “to bow down to God in worship”.
That is very specifically when bowing down to God. Clearly in the Bible quote above, the the context is to bow down to a person, thus not indicating worship, but what I said in my original post.
[/quote]

 

[Deus_Vult]

batteddy:

Which is exactly why we must carefully consider what comparisons can be drawn when talking to Protestants. We must make sure terminology is understood, and that analogies are valid.

My point is not to try to get Saints called gods or anything.

Its trying to start a discussion about how much of our terminology is just to appease the protestants, what comparisons should we (carefully) not deny, and what clarifications must be made regarding some of our practices which MAY be validly comparible to pagan religions.

I see people here, for a while (up at the beginning of the thread, and especially in the middle) were so wound up about the whole “saint worship” and “saints like gods” comparisons and terminology that they wouldn’t even discuss it or conceed valid points. It was just “Shut up, you fools, thats not what we teach. Protestants might be listening and it would be so embarrassing if they saw us admitting we are a little bit like pagans. Quiet! It’s veneration, thats all!”

When discussing with Protestants, should we really just adamantly deny that our Saints are like the “pantheon of Greek gods” (a common accusation) and try to just play word games?

I think not. We should answer that accusation by saying: “Well, sort of, maybe. But let’s discuss what you mean by ‘gods’ and what we really mean by Saints and see what parts are comparable and what is different.” Instead of just churning out the same cookie-cutter line about “its just honor paid to really good friends of God who can pray to him in heaven for us…”.

Real philosophical dialogue and questioning is a lot more productive than such one-liners. Gets them to think a lot more and follow your logic than saying “No, its only veneration and they are only people we honor highly”…

That’s all I’m saying. We should CAREFULLY allow some of their common accusations and comparsions…but draw what distinctions we need to, and use the comparison as a starting point for discussions on, for example, what they think “worship” means and what they think makes it different than the honor paid to creatures, and why they think some things are reserved for God…etc…

I understand what you are trying to say…but you are never going to convince any protestant using your analogy of greek gods. It will only convince them even more we are pagan. Rather show them in scripture where it talks of prayer to Saints. A protestant will respect what is shown through scripture. Also keep in mind RacerX is not Roman Catholic and his intention was to scandalize the prayer of Saints on this thread…and many on this thread walked blindly right into it…if he is still reading the thread he is laughing at us all.