Is this blasphemy or just insulting?

[urban-hermit]

A Christian columnist I sometimes enjoy has disappointed me by placing a very anti-catholic statement in the final paragraph of this week’s column (i added the bold emphasis):

The doctrine of the servant leader is little more than the attempt of the American Christian church to accommodate feminism within its body, in much the same way that its predecessor once transubstantiated pagan gods into Catholic saints. It is neither rational nor biblical, and the poverty of its fruit can be seen in the continued fraying of the bonds that hold Christian marriages together. Christian husbands, wives and their so-called leaders alike would do well to honestly consider a variant of Joshua’s great question: Who do you serve, your culture or your God?
LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE

I have written him a kind of “protest” email.

My question is - do you think this is blasphemy or just an insult of Catholic beliefs?

 

[Orionthehunter]

urban-hermit:

A Christian columnist I sometimes enjoy has disappointed me by placing a very anti-catholic statement in the final paragraph of this week’s column (i added the bold emphasis):

I have written him a kind of “protest” email.

My question is - do you think this is blasphemy or just an insult of Catholic beliefs?

As I can’t see into this person’s heart, charitably I’ll characterize it as ignorance of Catholic Teaching, Discipline and Practice.

 

[bengal_fan]

i think it is stupidity. if he ever has really read scripture, he would see that Jesus was the utlimate “servant leader”. constantly we hear that whoever wants to be first must be last. Jesus (the greatest leader of all time) washed His disciples’ feet for crying out loud. this guy is power hungry and (to remain a “Christian”) must fit his understanding of the Bible to his desires as opposed to fitting himself into what the Bible says. as for the “shot” at catholics, i think it was deliberate. he obviously falls into the camp that there can be not truth that didn’t come from Christianity. i assume he doesn’t celebrate Easter or Christmas since they were originally pagan holidays.

 

[thistle]

urban-hermit:

A Christian columnist I sometimes enjoy has disappointed me by placing a very anti-catholic statement in the final paragraph of this week’s column (i added the bold emphasis):

I have written him a kind of “protest” email.

My question is - do you think this is blasphemy or just an insult of Catholic beliefs?

CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.

 

[rwoehmke]

About Christian Churches in general he may have a point. Just take a look at how many denominations are ordaining women. The reference to Catholic Saints from pagan gods, what would you expect when we have a Saint for lost articles, selling houses, and ad infinitum just like the pagans had a god for just about everything. How else would you have an outsider, non-believer think?

 

[Della]

rwoehmke:

About Christian Churches in general he may have a point. Just take a look at how many denominations are ordaining women. The reference to Catholic Saints from pagan gods, what would you expect when we have a Saint for lost articles, selling houses, and ad infinitum just like the pagans had a god for just about everything. How else would you have an outsider, non-believer think?

I expect outsiders to think like everyone should think, with their brains, not their prejudices or their biases. If they don’t understand Catholic teaching all they have to do is ask or read the Catechism. Sadly, they simply don’t want to.

 

[SemperJase]

Della:

I expect outsiders to think like everyone should think, with their brains, not their prejudices or their biases. If they don’t understand Catholic teaching all they have to do is ask or read the Catechism. Sadly, they simply don’t want to.

Notice when he claimed that saints come from pagan Gods the way he said it implies it is a known fact.
His statement is anti-catholic. This is not surprising considering he is a Southern Baptist. His negative view about the church is pretty much an article of faith with that denomination. No proof necessary.

 

[jzepi]

The author has, on his blog, posted a … um, well almost kind of a backhanded apology which reads in part:

Transubstantiation, small-t, is used correctly in the column, i.e., to change (one substance) into another; transmute, and the doctrine of the servant leader certainly changes the substance of the Biblical household doctrine. I merely chose to use that particular term as a semantical connection, not as a double-barrelled slam. So, while the reference to saints and pagan gods can be considered a shot - albeit hardly a cheap one - the proper use of a noun should not be considered as one, nor was it intended to be.

Unfortunately, elsewhere in the post he seems to demonstrate a persistent lack of understanding of the communion of saints. I sent him another e-mail with a link to catholic.com’s Praying_to_the_Saints tract, as well as a strong suggestion not to use the word “transubstantiation” flippantly. Here is the address of the blog entry where he doesn’t quite apologize for his shot at Catholicism:
voxday.blogspot.com/#114166405456435632

 

[urban-hermit]

The author has, on his blog, posted a … um, well almost kind of a backhanded apology which reads in part:

Transubstantiation, small-t, is used correctly in the column, i.e., to change (one substance) into another; transmute, and the doctrine of the servant leader certainly changes the substance of the Biblical household doctrine. I merely chose to use that particular term as a semantical connection, not as a double-barrelled slam. So, while the reference to saints and pagan gods can be considered a shot - albeit hardly a cheap one - the proper use of a noun should not be considered as one, nor was it intended to be.

Unfortunately, elsewhere in the post he seems to demonstrate a persistent lack of understanding of the communion of saints. I sent him another e-mail with a link to catholic.com’s Praying_to_the_Saints tract, as well as urging him not to use the word “transubstantiation” flippantly. Here is the address of the blog entry where he doesn’t quite apologize for his shot at Catholicism:
voxday.blogspot.com/#114166405456435632

 

[richbansha]

hmmmm. I take no offense. Blasphemy? Insult? I say neither. Maybe he intended to take a jab, but it is a pretty weak one.

The metamorphosis of pagan gods into christian saints is fact. The newly converted were often so enmeshed in tradition that they looked for ways to equate the old gods to the new saints. It was just human nature. If they could substitute the worship of a pagan diety with the veneration of a Christian saint then so much the better for them.

 

[urban-hermit]

richbansha:

hmmmm. I take no offense. Blasphemy? Insult? I say neither…

I was offended by his implication that the Catholic Church was as off base about the veneration of saints as the Protestant Church is about “servant leadership”, which he repeatedly calls a “doctrine”. While there is a dictionary definition of doctrine that could be applied to “servant leadership”, we are really talking about apples and oranges. He made a poor analogy. Servant leadership is an interpretation of scripture applied to helping people structure relationships. It’s not a “doctrine” in any theological sense. The communion of saints is a true doctrine, and is even mentioned in the Apostles Creed. Clearly in a different class than servant leadership.

But even more than that, what really offended me was his use of the word “transubstantiation” to make this poor analogy of his.

Transubstantiation is a special word. We don’t feel the need to say “transubstantiation FROM bread and wine INTO the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ…”. We just say “transubstantiation” and the meaning is clear. I want it to stay that way. Language is powerful, and to me that is a word well worth defending for the incredibly holy process it describes so well. Cunning people can use it to besmirch Our Lord if it becomes pedestrianized and profaned.

His explanation that it was “used correctly” is beside the point. There are various implications that could be drawn from the way he used it. And anyway I don’t want columnists or anybody really to start throwing that word around flippantly because it is a very easy way for cunning people to subtly insult Our Lord in the Eucharist by using it in all manner of figurative ways. He probably was not trying to do that, but some people would.

“What? I didn’t say anything about your faith. It’s a word in the dictionary. Touchy, aren’t you?”

Yeah, I guess I am about certain things.

–Sorry for the diatribe and thanks for listening. I needed to vent. Thanks Catholic Answers! These forums are great for venting.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Catholicism has a lot of unique words and phrases that derive from various councils and were originally written in words other than English. They were translated eventually from the Latin or Greek, and many of the translations leave something to be desired.

In addition, Protestantism also has a lot of unique words and phrases, but they often simply have no parallel or no equivalent within Catholicism. Yet often, folks use the Protestant expression as if the expression also applied to Catholicism.

This situation leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.

One of my favorites is “Justification”… Catholics have never used that word.

In the specific case of “transubstantiation”, most people simply have NO IDEA what it means and use it “interchangeably” with what the English “sounds like”. It is simple ignorance. And can be “fixed” by writing to the user with a non-technical explanation of its meaning and uniqueness in the Catholic Church.