Patrick Madrid's debate on prayers to the saints

[6glargento]

Has anyone listened to the “great debate” between patrick madrid and james white? what did you think of it? who did you think won? I’m really not sure as to who i think won, i think that madrid provided many good points and cleared aup alot of missconceptions but there seemed to be alot of points that james asked which patrick couldn’t respond to, such as teh isusue with the hebrew word equivilant to “dulia” being reserved for God alone or the council of elvira which banned icons in spain, what do you guys think about this?

 

[NotWorthy]

I remember listening to it a while back. I don’t know why he didn’t address the council of elvira. I understood Spain had been recently converted from pagan religions. The reason they banned icons (for Spain only) was so as not to confuse the newly converted Christians into thinking they had exchanged one pagan worship for another. I may be confusing this council decision with another that banned idols elsewhere, but I can’t be sure.

 

[CATHOLICHEAD]

Maybe you should hear the debate OVER again then. Pat DID address the Council of Elvira!

 

[JPrejean]

Given that I called White on his show and his discussion with me demonstrated no familiarity at all with the theology underlying Second Nicaea, I don’t know why you’d trust his estimation of Elvira either. The entire point of Second Nicaea and the adoption of the Latin term dulia was that they were deliberately narrowing the meaning of that term, which previously referred to both what is now called latria and what is now called dulia. Like proskuneo, douleuo could refer to both divine worship and veneration. New technical terms were selected at Nicaea in order to distinguish concepts that already existed. It is sheer anachronism to look to the past use of terms (e.g., Elvira, the OT) when the current use of those terms (beginning with Second Nicaea) is distinct. What White would actually have to show is that the concepts the terms are describing could not be found earlier. But he doesn’t even manage that.

I reproduce part of a response to White given elsewhere, after I had already spoken to him on the Dividing Line:

If it were simply a matter of calling the same religious devotion by a different word, then obviously, this wouldn’t suffice. But the questioner’s point, evidenced in the quote from St. Thomas, was exactly that the difference between what Catholicism calls latria and what Catholicism calls dulia is not merely a difference of terminology but a difference of concept. White has introduced a term, “religious devotion,” that turns on equivocation. The Catholic position is that there are two sorts of religious devotion, identified by the technical terms latria and dulia. For White to assert that they are the same is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, using the same term to refer to two distinct concepts.

White’s assertion that Catholics are attempting to change “You shall worship and serve God alone” into “you shall worship God alone; but as long as you call your religious devotion ‘service’ you can ‘serve’ Mary and angels and saints, too” is confused for the same reason. If “worship and serve” refers to one concept in the OT usage (or at least in this particular verse), and one of the Catholic technical terms refers to that concept (as latria would in this case), then it isn’t trying to change the meaning to use one technical term latria) to refer to the same concept that the OT described using two terms.

quote:​

The Bible not only does not recognize such a distinction, it denies it, both lexicographically (both latria and dulia trace back to biblical usages and both terms refer to divine worship) as well as by direct assertion.​

First, this wouldn’t prove White’s point even if true; to make out the denial, he would have to show that both terms refer to divine worship and nothing else. That doesn’t hold up so well.

The Son of God quotes the relevant passage in Matt. 4:10 (NASB, parallel Lk. 4:8): "Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP (proskunhsein) THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE (latreusein) HIM ONLY.’,” paraphrasing Deut. 6:13 “You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship (LXX latreusein) Him and swear by His name.” Cf. Ex. 20:5 “You shall not worship (LXX proskunhsein) them or serve (LXX latreushn) them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.”

Daniel 2:46-47 (NASB) “Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and did homage (LXX prosekunhsen) to Daniel, and gave orders to present to him an offering and fragrant incense. The king answered Daniel and said, ‘Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery.’”

1 Chron. 29:20 (NASB)“Then David said to all the assembly, ‘Now bless the LORD your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage (prosekuhnsan) to the LORD and to the king.”

I freely concede that proskuneo (dulia in Latin theology, simply because the Latin cognate of proskuneo was used far more broadly) is being used for the same concept as latria in Matt. 4:10, Lk. 4:8, Deut. 6:13, and Ex. 20:5. It also seems pretty obvious that proskuneo means a bit more than that, which more than suffices to show the conceptual distinction.