Saint Worship

[CentralFLJames]

It bothers me that people on this forum say the we (Catholics) do not worship Mary, the saints, statues, relics…etc. Because we do! Worship means honor. In countries that British English is spoken, a judge is refered to as “your worship”. In Catholic theology, there is Absolute Worship and Relative Worship…

Thanks for this insight TradCatholic. I have learned something. This makes all the time spent defending the faith in these “apologetic” forums against insincere inquiries and the deliberate anti-Catholic bashing “worth it” to me. It never occurred to me that there was a tri-hiearchy implicit in the semantics of the word “worship”. I have always tried to be sensitive to the protestant horror to our apparent worship of saints by using the terms “veneration”, “honor” or “profound inspirational example”. Now after learning this aspect of “worship” I am angry that we are letting protestants redefine for us our own semantics and word meanings. If we permit anti-Catholic polemics to make us concede the full range of worship by giving up the middle ground something gets pushed out of the worship or deprecated (God, Mary, Saints etc.).

So this insight gives further example of just how far removed protestants are from true and proper worship and how they are not reaching out to avail themselves of the intercessory graces and merits God has entrusted through our saints. Even a lot of Catholics fail to understand that there is a hiearchy of merit in heaven and God DOES desire to honor His Saints with spiritual gifts that they may extend to The Church Militant through various special devotions. I myself follow a number of devotionals since I am very aware of this.

Thanks for this insight.

Unfortunately I don’t think we can take a lot of time getting protestants up to speed in the apologetic work since they immediately shut down on any notion that even smells of saintly worship as “evil” and somehow denying God His due through worship of his created creatures. This is a more advanced concept that Catholics can deal with. But I don’t think many protestants will listen long enough to hear us out if we say that we do more than “venerate” our saints.

All the same - thanks,
James

 

[water]

We have to live at the current time If majority understand “worship as worship”, then it is better to use the language that help them understand, not to confuse them.

How many of us today use the word “gay” to say “Are you happy?”

 

[John_Hiner]

How many of us today use the word “gay” to say “Are you happy?”

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Any of us who want to read *Peter Pan to our children are obliged to fight for the word “gay” in its older sense.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

---

*The closing paragraph of J.M Barrie’s *Peter Pan *is:

As you look at Wendy, you may see her hair becoming white, and her figure little again, for all this happened long ago. Jane is now a common grown-up, with a daughter called Margaret; and every spring cleaning time, except when he forgets, Peter comes for Margaret and takes her to the Neverland, where she tells him stories about himself, to which he listens eagerly. When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter’s mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.

 

[Church_Militant]

You’ve just about stated the Catholic position. We would only add that they’re not just examples, but also intercessors who desire to and who will pray for us.

Yep! See Hebrews 12:1!

 

[Atreyu]

Why even bother with this kind of talk?

There are clarifying articles in the CA online library.
The Intercession of the Saints (Fathers*)
Praying to the Saints
Saint Worship?

There’s no reason to use outdated terminology that doesn’t have the same definition now as it had centuries ago, (unless of course you just want something to say to freak out any n-Cs you are talking with, which does nothing at all towards helping them understand our most holy faith.

The problem CM, is that the word “worship” as described in the OP, is not an out-dated terminology. It might be in US English, possibly due to the influence of (non-Anglican) Protestantism. However, as rightly pointed out in the OP, the word “worship” very much is still used in the same context today as its historical meaning. Now to quote The Man:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
We already have a word, “adore”, in English which means what Protestants have come to mean by the word “worship”. So now, the word worship loses all meaning. Moreover, as rightly pointed out, it causes confusion when Protestants look at historical documents and see the word “worship” used there in its correct sense.

What point is there in allowing the usefulness of the word “worship” to cease?

The OP was spot-on.

Edit: a prize for anyone who can tell me who “The Man” is, and what work of his I’ve quoted (and googling is cheating!!!).

 

[Atreyu]

Im personally a Christian of Pentacostal practice. I mean no offense to anyone when I say this and I see all of you as my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I one verse comes to mind when I read some of the comments I see on this thread. Forgive me the exact refrence escapes me but in one of the Gospels jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the light, nobody comes to the father exept through me” I dont see the point in bringing any sort of worship to anyone but God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, because the worship of Jesus is the only way to get to God, the only way to truly know and love him because of our sinfull natures. Our flesh is adamently opposed to God by its very nature, because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, we have a way through into the holy of holy’s, by the blood of jesus we are cleansed from our sins. It is not because of saints and because of Mary (face it, she dident die for our sins, even if she remained absolutly sinless, it was not her that shed her blood, she was not God and it was not her purpose to save us. Im not debating her virginity, her sinlessness or anything of that) that we are saved. I personally would rather put all my worship to the One true living God, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Having said that I do not disrespect the saints, or Mary or anyone else of the like. Infact I have much reverance for them. There are lessons to be learned from there life, there struggles and there works. They are examples of how someone should live and how someone should lead a life like Christs. They are just that though, Examples. Not Gods themselves.

This is just what I think, believe what you want. In the big scope of things this is insignificant. Christ died for our sins, thats what matters most, Devoting your life to his service and his name is what matters, not what saint you have the most respect for.

I love you all, my brothers and sisters in Christ,

Pastor Brendan Marchione

Well you’ve offended me Pastor Marchione. Why? Because it seems to me that you simply haven’t tried understanding the Catholic teaching on this matter. If you’d read the thread more thoroughly, I feel you wouldn’t have made such a mistake.

 

[Burning4Christ]

Well you’ve offended me Pastor Marchione. Why? Because it seems to me that you simply haven’t tried understanding the Catholic teaching on this matter. If you’d read the thread more thoroughly, I feel you wouldn’t have made such a mistake.

I understand, maybe not fully, but to an extent that I feel relativly informed about saint worship and the Roman Catholic belief concerning it. I understand the 3 levels of worship, I understand how praying to saints is (and this is something a Roman Catholic told me) akin to asking someone to pray for you on earth.

I apologies for any offense taken, I meant it not in a spirit of hatred and contempt but in love, and If the way I said what I said conveyed at all hatred or contempt, that was my error and I apologies and ask you to forgive me. But I do stand by what I said.

I understand that Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, and to some extent I dont either, but the bible is the only unchanging and inmovable word of God, and that is where I derive my knowledge from. But thats an entirly diffrent debate.

My Brother, I again ask you to forgive me for inadvertantly conveying a spirit of contempt, I should have worked bettter to convey what I had to say in a more loving way. But I do stand by what I said.

In the love of Christ,

Pr. Brendan Marchione

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
I dont see the point in bringing any sort of worship to anyone but God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, because the worship of Jesus is the only way to get to God, the only way to truly know and love him because of our sinfull natures. Our flesh is adamently opposed to God by its very nature, because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, we have a way through into the holy of holy’s, by the blood of jesus we are cleansed from our sins.

Why do you see the flesh as being adamantly opposed to God when Jesus was flesh and we know that Jesus was perfectly human and perfectly Divine and wholly pleasing to God in both natures? I posit to you that the flesh is pleasing to God when it is perfected through Christ. Why else would God promise to restore our flesh after the 2nd comming and make us permanently with Him. I never understood why Protestants seemed to have such a preoccupation with “filthy flesh” and being almost centered on self flagellation and self effacing kinds of attitudes when we were created wholely in God’s image.

It is not because of saints and because of Mary (face it, she dident die for our sins, even if she remained absolutly sinless, it was not her that shed her blood, she was not God and it was not her purpose to save us. Im not debating her virginity, her sinlessness or anything of that) that we are saved. I personally would rather put all my worship to the One true living God, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

You don’t see Mary as having suffered at all with Christ? Recollect how she suffered in the social controversy over how she was to live as a virgin among Jews (while pregnant) with Joseph as her husband and how she bore Jesus for 40 weeks in the arc of her body and went through the labors of Child birth to deliver him to humanity. Then again she suffered when Jesus was thought lost as a young man as he taught in the temple for 3 distressing days that are prefiguring of 3 days when Jesus was at rest in the tomb and gone from our sight. Again she suffered at the foot of the cross when Jesus looked down to her in suffering and gave her to St. John as John’s mother? I disagree that Mary did not suffer. She appears to have suffered grievously and was highly integrative and cooperative with Jesus’ mission. If not for Mary’s cooperation none of us would be saved. As our new spiritual mother we have a duty to at least venerate and honor Mary. Somehow I don’t think God sees that kind of veneration as taking away from God’s worship - after all by honoring Mary as a spiritual parent we are also honoring our Father in Heaven too.

Having said that I do not disrespect the saints, or Mary or anyone else of the like. Infact I have much reverance for them. There are lessons to be learned from there life, there struggles and there works. They are examples of how someone should live and how someone should lead a life like Christs. They are just that though, Examples. Not Gods themselves.

Agree that they are not Gods. But I would not diminish their importance as “just” examples. They are profoundly achieved saints. It is safe to assume that God has rewarded them with spiritual graces and will want to honor them by letting them intercede on our behalf to exercise some of those graces and gifts God gave them - all for the Glory of God and the joy that benefits the entire Communion of Saints.

James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’d have to look this up, or perhaps our British friends could help us, but I believe the english word ‘worship’ comes from an ancient root meaning ‘worth-ship’, or someone who is worthy, like a king or queen.

While that is true, it is no more a guide as to the meaning of the word than hlaford, or “loaf-ward”, is a guide to the meaning of “lord”, which is its modern descendant ​

The etymology of a word is often a very poor guide to its meaning. All that etymology tells us is where a word comes from - it gives us no information as to its function, that is, to how it is used.

To confuse matters, here is some more worship.

 

[Burning4Christ]

You don’t see Mary as having suffered at all with Christ? Recollect how she suffered in the social controversy over how she was to live as a virgin among Jews (while pregnant) with Joseph as her husband and how she bore Jesus for 40 weeks in the arc of her body and went through the labors of Child birth to deliver him to humanity. Then again she suffered when Jesus was thought lost as a young man as he taught in the temple for 3 distressing days that are prefiguring of 3 days when Jesus was at rest in the tomb and gone from our sight. Again she suffered at the foot of the cross when Jesus looked down to her in suffering and gave her to St. John as John’s mother? I disagree that Mary did not suffer. She appears to have suffered grievously and was highly integrative and cooperative with Jesus’ mission. If not for Mary’s cooperation none of us would be saved.

Yes she suffer for christs name, But so did EVERYONE else that declared it. Paul and Silas where beat up and imprisoned, Peter was Executed, Paul was eventually executed for his embracing of the name of Jesus. Even we today suffer for the name of Christ every time someone mocks us, every time we are attacked verbally for our faith. It says in the word that all of us will suffer for our fate. Many suffer much much more for declaring the name of Jesus than Mary ever did. Im not trying to bring any sort of disrespect towards Mary, again her and all of the saints are great examples.

With the love of Christ,

Pr. Brendan Marchione

 

[Genesius61]

Pastor Marchione. First, I would like to thank you for your graceful approach concerning this matter. Although I am a convert to the Catholic faith I have been in many different denominations, excluding yours.

In some ways I totally feel what you are saying. The whole ‘Marion worship’ thing was a hurdle I had to get over myself. When I read in the catechism of the Catholic Church the official teaching; that Mary is NOT to be worshiped and that worship is reserved for God alone (I suspect it was probably referring to ‘Latvia’ worship), it really put my mind at ease.

In addition, I remember a Jesuit priest who helped me along my faith journey. He once told me, “I’m with you. You know what I ask those who blur the line of worship w/ Mary? I ask them, ‘When is the last time you ever saw Mary on a crucifix?’” He also told me, “It doesn’t matter whether you worship in the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, or the Catholic Church. The real question is, ‘Are you a follower of Jesus?’”

I thought he had some real profound insights. I know there are groups within the Catholic Church that do have a tendency to blur that line and it frustrates me because I know it is contrary to official Church teaching, and I don’t blame non-Catholic Christians for accusing us of ‘worshiping Mary’ as untrue as it may be for most Catholics. Then of course, there’s the problem of proving that since none of us finite humans can truly know another’s heart.

Having said all that, I wonder if you have really been reading the posts in this thread all that carefully? You seem to just be writing it all off as insignificant. Yes, I agree that following Jesus is the most important thing. I don’t think that anyone is debating that issue. However the topic of this thread has to do w/ the different forms of worship as defined by theological language (i.e. Dulia (honor), Hyperdulia (Honor to Mary), and Latvia (worship of God alone).

Most protestants would hail Billy Graham as a wonderful servant of Christ (as do I). He is full of integrity. When you recognize people in that way, you are giving them honor (Dulia). You yourself acknowledged the wonderful things the saints do (you are giving them honor…Dulia).

The reason this issue is such an issue is because the Catholic Church has documents dating all the way back to the beginnings of the Church. In those documents language has changed over the centuries. One of the words that have changed is the term for ‘worship’ which is what is being discussed here.

If a protestant were to read an old Church document referring worship (Dulia) to a human being they would feel justified in accusing the Catholic Church of idolatry, which of course, is NOT the case.

Again, thank you for your charitible approach and Godbless you.

 

[Atreyu]

I understand, maybe not fully, but to an extent that I feel relativly informed about saint worship and the Roman Catholic belief concerning it. I understand the 3 levels of worship, I understand how praying to saints is (and this is something a Roman Catholic told me) akin to asking someone to pray for you on earth.

I apologies for any offense taken, I meant it not in a spirit of hatred and contempt but in love, and If the way I said what I said conveyed at all hatred or contempt, that was my error and I apologies and ask you to forgive me. But I do stand by what I said.

First of all, you didn’t really cause offense; it was more of a rhetorical tool. However, the only reason I’m not offended is because I’m just so used to it!

That being said, you’re not really getting the point about why I’m upset. It was not your tone that I was “offended” at, but rather the content of your post. So when you say “you stand by what you said”, that’s exactly the problem I have! Do you understand?

I understand that Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, and to some extent I dont either, but the bible is the only unchanging and inmovable word of God, and that is where I derive my knowledge from. But thats an entirly diffrent debate.

Do you read the historical documents? I could ask a bunch of other questions, but you’re right; this is an entirely different debate.

My Brother, I again ask you to forgive me for inadvertantly conveying a spirit of contempt, I should have worked bettter to convey what I had to say in a more loving way. But I do stand by what I said.

Again, you conveyed what you had to convey perfectly charitably, and this is not what I had a problem with; but the content of your post. My problem is with the following from your first post:

They are just that though, Examples. Not Gods themselves.

This is just what I think, believe what you want. In the big scope of things this is insignificant.

In saying they are not gods themselves, you imply we think they are gods. Then by saying “believe what you want”, you reinforce the point. This is what I’m talking about. If you tell us that you really do understand the Catholic doctrine, then don’t accuse us of being polytheists as well.

But like I said, I’m really not offended. I just hope you know exactly what the teaching is, and please don’t accuse us of believing in something we don’t. Moving on, you also said:

I personally would rather put all my worship to the One true living God, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I think of it this way: Jesus was God. Sure he suffered an awful lot when he came down to Earth, and it shows just how much he loves us, but he is God! He can do anything that he wants. I’m sure it was difficult, but it just doesn’t seem like it was that much of a challenge for him, do you know what I mean?

The saints on the other hand (other than Mary) have concupiscence to deal with; just like you and I do. So when I see Saint Francis of Assisi doing all the wonderful things he did, it gives me heart and hope that I may follow in his footsteps. The ultimate of course, is to follow in Jesus’ footsteps. All that we really need is his example; however the example of the saints gives me comfort to no end. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the examples of the saints give us strength to know that following Christ really is possible.

As Augustine said:
Augustine of Hippo:

At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think of it this way: Jesus was God. Sure he suffered an awful lot when he came down to Earth, and it shows just how much he loves us, but he is God! He can do anything that he wants. I’m sure it was difficult, but it just doesn’t seem like it was that much of a challenge for him, do you know what I mean?

The saints on the other hand (other than Mary) have concupiscence to deal with; just like you and I do. So when I see Saint Francis of Assisi doing all the wonderful things he did, it gives me heart and hope that I may follow in his footsteps. The ultimate of course, is to follow in Jesus’ footsteps. All that we really need is his example; however the example of the saints gives me comfort to no end. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the examples of the saints give us strength to know that following Christ really is possible.

As Augustine said:

Very good points Atreyu. I never really explicitly thought of it before today but you are DEAD ON RIGHT! Jesus was Divine - HE COULD NOT FAIL! Don’t get me wrong. Jesus suffered fully as a human and was tempted fully as a human - but He really was incapable of sin BY DEFINITION OF HIS DIVINITY. I hope I am not getting into some obscure heresy here. But I think this is correct. He was tempted and suffered like every man but he did not have any pre-disposed gravity toward sin at all - he had NO appetite for sin like we have simply by virtue of being born and existing.

Everyone of The Saints (save Mary) had to fight their own sinful nature and humanity every day of their lives. Everyone of them had the risk of eternal damnation hanging over their heads every day of their lives.

Now I am more consciously aware of just why I look up to the saints so much for inspiration. Jesus is of course the perfect example. But the saints are a perfect example of what its like to be a sinner who falls over and over again but through the grace of and teaching of Jesus can “make it”.

James

 

[Burning4Christ]

I dident mean to imply that Roman Catholics where polytheist, I meant convey that many inadvertently (or rather, in misinterpretation of church teachings) reach that point where they hold Mary and other saints in such high regard that they have elaborate statues and altars of them at which they pray to daily. This was my Grandmother, a devout Italian catholic. She had a massive shrine to Mary and prayed to it and it alone. I understand and do hold the Saints in high regard, I just choose to pray to Jesus.

Also I must clarify that I did not mean to call the saints insignificant, I meant to say that the little things that we bicker about, like saint worship and the protestant reservation towards it, or forms of baptism, or sola scriptura, and anything of the such is insignificant ultimatly, what ultimately matters is weather or not we follow Jesus with all of our hearts minds and spirits.

Be blessed,

Pr. Brendan Marchione

 

[CentralFLJames]

I dident mean to imply that Roman Catholics where polytheist, I meant convey that many inadvertently (or rather, in misinterpretation of church teachings) reach that point where they hold Mary and other saints in such high regard that they have elaborate statues and altars of them at which they pray to daily. This was my Grandmother, a devout Italian catholic. She had a massive shrine to Mary and prayed to it and it alone. I understand and do hold the Saints in high regard, I just choose to pray to Jesus.

Also I must clarify that I did not mean to call the saints insignificant, I meant to say that the little things that we bicker about, like saint worship and the protestant reservation towards it, or forms of baptism, or sola scriptura, and anything of the such is insignificant ultimatly, what ultimately matters is weather or not we follow Jesus with all of our hearts minds and spirits.

Be blessed,

Pr. Brendan Marchione

Brendan, I personally appreciate your efforts at reaching out ecumenically and sharing personal insights.

I’d also like to share a Catholic perspective that I think is very typical of most Catholics. I personally do not know of ONE SINGLE CATHOLIC who “worships” in Mary or any other saint in the sense you imagine takes place. I can’t speak from experience as to what goes on with Catholics in other countries but in the USA we just do not ever see the faithful laying prostrate in front of statues in worship or anything remote to that. What Protestants are seeing as worship is demonstrative of an extreme level of piousness in religious sentiment - we believe in kneeling and praying. The statues are just there for inspiration and to make us and others consciously aware that the place is reserved for quiet contemplation and prayer.

If you really look what you will see in any Catholic Church during services are Catholics standing in line to receive Eucharist and praying in actual words of literal worship to God the Father through Jesus in the liturgy of the mass. This is worship - the other things are prayers. We have a major semantic empasse here and ecclesiastical cultural divide that needs to be overcome.

Do not confuse prayer for saintly intercession (in front of a statue or at the privacy of home) as worship in the sense you imagine. Prayer is nothing more and nothing less than spiritual communication that is no different in principal to what we do in email, in person, on the phone, on forum discussion etc. Well take that back. Prayer is very intimate and personal and much greater than all these other examples. Prayer is timeless and is not constrained by time (why Catholics pray during funeral rites after the soul has already been judged relative to our “current” earth time - but still relevant to the timeless God as if uttered at the moment before that person died to petition God for Mercy).

Prayer is our only earthly way to enter heaven with our intentions, requests, thanks, praise etc. without actually dieing and entering heaven. Nothing in heaven ever decays - including prayer. Thus, prayer is perpetual and metaphorically can take on a heavenly aura of incense or the spiritual form of a bouquet of flowers or pleasant song etc. So, those praying to the saints never worship - they are just asking for a special intercession or are extending them recognitions of honor or thanks for their intercessory help as a fellow brother or sister in Christ. Mary is the highest saint since we see her as our spiritual mother. We don’t worship our spiritual mother but we honor and love her like no other just as we honor our father (and worship Him).

You will never see a catholic sitting in front of a statue of the blessed Mary 24/7 worshipping like you will find us worshiping in front of the Blessed Sacrament of Jesus (The Eucharist). If you were Catholic or were steeped in our culture you would know that the worship takes place in front of the tabernacle or in prayerful 24/7 witness and adoration to the exhibit of the Eucharist in an exposed Reliquary (usually in the hushed privacy of inner private chapel). This is worship. In essence no true and acceptable worship is even possible without the Eucharist being involved somehow - either through the offering up of the sacrament in the mass (and receiving it back) or through the sacrifice of somone in communion with the sacrament of Eucharist through their life’s works. This is why Catholics insist on Eucharist as being integral with true worship.

Consider the story of Cain and Abel, brothers who both “believed” in God. We see this as prefiguring unacceptable worship and the form of acceptable true worship. Eucharist is the thing that differentiates us from all other religions and worship. Where Protestants complain that Catholic worship Mary and the saints we complain that you do not even venerate the saints and only marginally venerate Christ. To get to true worship of God one MUST have The Eucharist.

Come to the Catholic Church to offer the perfect worship of the mass and the only thing pleasing to God - The Eucharist.

James

 

[Atreyu]

I dident mean to imply that Roman Catholics where polytheist, I meant convey that many inadvertently (or rather, in misinterpretation of church teachings) reach that point where they hold Mary and other saints in such high regard that they have elaborate statues and altars of them at which they pray to daily. This was my Grandmother, a devout Italian catholic. She had a massive shrine to Mary and prayed to it and it alone. I understand and do hold the Saints in high regard, I just choose to pray to Jesus.

And then she would have gone to Mass and adored God in a way she never could worship Mary.

Also I must clarify that I did not mean to call the saints insignificant, I meant to say that the little things that we bicker about, like saint worship and the protestant reservation towards it, or forms of baptism, or sola scriptura, and anything of the such is insignificant ultimatly, what ultimately matters is weather or not we follow Jesus with all of our hearts minds and spirits.

Agreed. But it becomes significant when Protestants accuse us of idolatry, right? It isn’t very nice. Not to mention the fact that it causes such division.

 

[Atreyu]

The problem CM, is that the word “worship” as described in the OP, is not an out-dated terminology. It might be in US English, possibly due to the influence of (non-Anglican) Protestantism. However, as rightly pointed out in the OP, the word “worship” very much is still used in the same context today as its historical meaning. Now to quote The Man:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
We already have a word, “adore”, in English which means what Protestants have come to mean by the word “worship”. So now, the word worship loses all meaning. Moreover, as rightly pointed out, it causes confusion when Protestants look at historical documents and see the word “worship” used there in its correct sense.

What point is there in allowing the usefulness of the word “worship” to cease?

The OP was spot-on.

Edit: a prize for anyone who can tell me who “The Man” is, and what work of his I’ve quoted (and googling is cheating!!!).

In case anyone was wondering, “The Man” is C S Lewis and the book is Mere Christianity.