"Worship"

[adf417]

I believe Matt 6: 24 applies here also…

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I know this verse is usually used to when discussing the love of money over God but why can’t it be applied to all would be idols?

For me, personally, to “hate” or “despise” God would manifest, at some time, in not receiving the Eucharist either for a period of time or forever.

God, help me to never loose sight of you in the Holy Eucharist.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Catholics seemed divided on this sometimes; and Protestants basically have an uproar about Catholics on this issue, and that’s “Worship”, who’s being worshiped, and what qualifies as worship?

According to the Oxford Dictionary:
1The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity:
the worship of God
ancestor worship

1.2Adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle:
our society’s worship of teenagers​

The most difficult thing for me is understanding when someone or something is ‘worshiped’?

I do not accuse Catholics as worshiping anyone else or anything else as God; but how does one know if they’ve gone too far or not? At what point is high reverence considered worship and no longer reverence?

For example; one can worship money and yet not even believe in God or know that they are worshiping money. Or one can idolize a sports team and not realize they’re taking part in idolatry. Even the popular American show with up and coming singers has the word ‘idol’ in it. Is this the kind of idolizing and worship that God would not permit? And if so, does it extend to Saints?

Finally I want to ask about the words themselves and how terms change. For example; many Catholics will say that they don’t worship Mary and yet this Catholic article says they do, but not like you think. From Catholic Answers: catholic.com/tracts/saint-worship

Another example of a word change would be ‘Adoration’. Catholics say that Adoration is only for God; but again someone could say they adore their cute little babies face. Even the french phrase when referring to a deep love for someone is J’adore. It doesn’t show Adoration only due to God, but an intimate love for another that isn’t worship.

So how and where do we draw the line? How do we know that we’re not worshiping someone/something without knowing?

A thought: although I find the question interesting, I’m quite reluctant to read/post on a thread about it, because it seems to me that a thread like that can get pretty crazy pretty fast.

Granted it’s clear that not everyone feels that way (who knows, maybe what I just said is representative of nobody but myself? ) since you’ve got some responses here already.

 

[exnihilo]

So then how do you explain:

Acts 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man. "

Exactly what needs to be explained? The text says Cornelius worshipped him. It could be that he was worshipping Peter as a god. It could also be that Peter didn’t want that sign of honor. I could imagine some man kneeling to another man who is a leader, without any religious context, and that man saying ‘stand up, I too am a man’. Is there something about the text that makes it clear that Cornelius was worshipping him as a god?

 

[Telstar]

Exactly what needs to be explained? The text says Cornelius worshipped him. It could be that he was worshipping Peter as a god. It could also be that Peter didn’t want that sign of honor. I could imagine some man kneeling to another man who is a leader, without any religious context, and that man saying ‘stand up, I too am a man’. Is there something about the text that makes it clear that Cornelius was worshipping him as a god?

We also have to remember that Cornelius was a Centurion, a high ranking Roman soldier. It was customary for any Roman soldier to bow down or kneel before someone of higher rank, or a person known to have greater dignity, as a sign of submission to their greater authority and in due respect of their position. Peter was a very humble man and servant of God, so he was probably a little embarrassed that anyone would show him such an outward sign of respect, especially a high ranking Roman. Peter didn’t laud his position in the Church, or as an Apostle, over anyone. This encounter with Cornelius was also where he realized that, “God is not a respecter of persons.”, especially in regards to our salvation.

 

[dronald]

We also have to remember that Cornelius was a Centurion, a high ranking Roman soldier. It was customary for any Roman soldier to bow down or kneel before someone of higher rank, or a person known to have greater dignity, as a sign of submission to their greater authority and in due respect of their position. Peter was a very humble man and servant of God, so he was probably a little embarrassed that anyone would show him such an outward sign of respect, especially a high ranking Roman. Peter didn’t laud his position in the Church, or as an Apostle, over anyone. This encounter with Cornelius was also where he realized that, “God is not a respecter of persons.”, especially in regards to our salvation.

However this explanation couldn’t apply to John and his vision at all.

 

[exnihilo]

However this explanation couldn’t apply to John and his vision at all.

The explanation of Revelation is that you are not to worship an Angel as God. The falling at the feet is not worshiping. The falling at the feet was so that the Angel could be worshipped. All we know from this verse is we are not to worship Angels as God. It doesn’t give us any details about what exactly worshipping an Angel means.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

However this explanation couldn’t apply to John and his vision at all.

Hi dronald, I’ll get back to you about dulia at the weekend, if that’s okay, when I have more time and brainspace.

On this point, however, I can help using very little of either of those. The word in question in Acts and Revelation is not the English word “worship”, but rather:
προσεκύνησεν (prosekynēsen) — 4 Occurrences

biblehub.com/greek/prosekune_sen_4352.htm

As you can see, it is sometimes translated as “worship”, and sometimes as “bowing down” or “falling on (ones) knees” before someone. If you looked at more translations, you would probably find even more variation. It is not the same word as “dulia” or “latria”, and won’t be equivalent to them.

In Colossians, the word is Threskeia, which is often translated in other places in the Bible as ‘religion’.
biblehub.com/greek/thre_skeia_2356.htm

This also gives some clues (although not enough, on its own) as to what the problem was with how people were treating angels.

 

[twf]

However this explanation couldn’t apply to John and his vision at all.

Yet we find other Biblical examples where prostration / bowing down before a creature is NOT rebuked…so the physical action of honouring a creature in this manner cannot be intrinsically wrong. It is the intent that matters.
Examples:
Daniel falls prostrate before the Archangel Gabriel (see for example Daniel 8:17) and is not rebuked for this homage. In Daniel 10:17 the prophet addresses the Archangel as “my lord”, showing his due honour.
In Ruth 10:2, Ruth prostrates before Boaz to show him homage…but once again the intent was not to worship him as God.

 

[ericc]

So then how do you explain:

Acts 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man. "

Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant { Greek b fellow bondservant b } with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God. " For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

In Acts and Rev , the Greek word for worship is not dulia.
Acts - prosekynēsen
Rev - proskynēsai

Thayer’s Definition:
"in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
    to the Jewish high priests
    to God
    to Christ
    to heavenly beings
    to demons "

So the terminology used there is not exclusively for God.

 

[kimg901]

Worship is for the Blessed Trinity. Honor is for Mary and the Saints.

 

[zz912]

Yet we find other Biblical examples where prostration / bowing down before a creature is NOT rebuked…so the physical action of honouring a creature in this manner cannot be intrinsically wrong. It is the intent that matters.
Examples:
Daniel falls prostrate before the Archangel Gabriel (see for example Daniel 8:17) and is not rebuked for this homage. In Daniel 10:17 the prophet addresses the Archangel as “my lord”, showing his due honour.
In Ruth 10:2, Ruth prostrates before Boaz to show him homage…but once again the intent was not to worship him as God.

Don’t forget the example in Genesis where Abraham bowed down before the three angels. There was no rebuke given then either.

And let’s not forget the huge honor/devotion given to Mary by Elizabeth.

 

[zz912]

Here are some passages that sparked my interest as it relates to the Catholic/Protestant debate on icon/saint reverence/worship:

Colossians 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, { Or b about the things he has seen b } puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations

Here we can see that in most of this chapter Paul condemns much of what a Protestant may see as The Catholic/Orthodox Church today. He even shuts down observance of day, festivals and not eating certain foods! (Fish Fridays anyone?)

I read that passage completely differently from you. I don’t see Paul condemning festivals or other religious behaviors. I see him condemning those who focus on only those things, who make them the focal point of their lives, to give themselves the fame and attention instead of keeping the focus on God. I see him also condemning those who try to bully others while false piety in their extreme devotions which lack substance.

Just like any spiritual devotion, if there is no humility and intention to focus on God, then it loses all effectiveness. You can say the Lord’s Prayer 1,000 times with a pure heart and it will bring you closer to God, or you can say it 1,000 times with no humility and the intention to show how great of a Christian you are, and it will have a harmful effect on you.

 

[spiderweb]

It seems to me that if God is placed first and that the individual recognizes that all good in saints, angels, other people, things, etc. comes from God, than there really is no problem. It’s when we separate the “good” in things or persons from God, that this becomes idolatry. It would be kind of like honoring a painting as if the painting itself is responsible for it’s own beauty. On the other hand stating how wonderful a painting is while recognizing that it is only because of the painter, honors the painter.

Many people will often praise saints for answering their prayers. This is a short way of saying “thank you saint XX for hearing my request for your intercessory prayer, and joining me in my own prayers to God. It was through your intercession that my feeble prayers were answered by God, because from the scriptures I know that the prayers of the righteous avails much.” Saying that saint XX answered my prayers is much easier and shorter to say.

In regards to St. John falling before the angel in revelation, I like to think of it this way. If I was meeting a Catholic Bishop I would kiss his ring as a sign of respect for his authority. But If I was meeting that same Bishop standing next to the Pope, I would kiss the Pope’s ring and not the Bishops (although I’m not sure that’s the proper protocol). Since John was in heaven talking to the greater authority of God, his obeisance should have been to God and not to the angel. Contrast that with other meetings with Angels in the Bible where they are representatives of God, and therefor showing obeisance to them is appropriate because of the authority that they are representing at that time.

 

[spiderweb]

So then how do you explain:

Colossians 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, { Or b about the things he has seen b } puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations –

21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”

22 ( referring to things that all perish as they are used ) – according to human precepts and teachings?

23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

I would say that he is referring to some of the gnostic or other sects that were around at that time. I would also say that verse 16 is warning them about some of the Jews that would judge them because as Christians, they would not be keeping the Sabbath but rather the Lord’s Day for worship. The Old feasts of new moons and festival days were fulfilled in Christ and no longer had to be fulfilled according to Jewish law. This does not condemn implementing other days that would be considered feast days.

At the same time, he does not condemn having feast days, or in not eating meat, or other forms of fasting. In fact Jesus says "When you fast…(Matt 6:16), not If you fast. Furthermore in Acts we see the Council binding a disciplinary fast of not eating things strangled (Acts 15:29). Most non-Catholic Christians have no problems opposing the Church in it’s celebration of feast days, and at the same time participate in some of those same feast days, such as Christmas and Easter. Many also participate in Ascension Thursday, and Ash Wednesday as well.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Most non-Catholic Christians have no problems opposing the Church in it’s celebration of feast days, and at the same time participate in some of those same feast days, such as Christmas and Easter. Many also participate in Ascension Thursday, and Ash Wednesday as well.

Not to mention that Celebrating The Birth of our Lord Jesus on December 25th is not in The Bible. It is a Catholic Tradition, not found in scripture that most denominations have no problem celebrating even though they claim to be Sola Scriptura. What does Christmas mean? CHRIST MASS. I am not getting hostile in bring that up, just something I wanted to add. But I have heard explanations as to how they can have it both ways. Must not have been very good because I do not remember what they were

 

[dronald]

I read that passage completely differently from you. I don’t see Paul condemning festivals or other religious behaviors. I see him condemning those who focus on only those things, who make them the focal point of their lives, to give themselves the fame and attention instead of keeping the focus on God. I see him also condemning those who try to bully others while false piety in their extreme devotions which lack substance.

Just like any spiritual devotion, if there is no humility and intention to focus on God, then it loses all effectiveness. You can say the Lord’s Prayer 1,000 times with a pure heart and it will bring you closer to God, or you can say it 1,000 times with no humility and the intention to show how great of a Christian you are, and it will have a harmful effect on you.

The passage I quoted says nothing of that sort. It’s saying that no one else should disqualify YOU; that is, the reader. One ought not to disqualify myself for not being interested in observance of days, asceticism, worship of angels, “Do not touch, do not taste” etc. Similar to how we are commanded by the Catholic Church not to eat certain foods, and are commanded to observe certain days; sometimes under penalty of mortal sin. Paul says not to let anyone do this.

I would say that he is referring to some of the gnostic or other sects that were around at that time. I would also say that verse 16 is warning them about some of the Jews that would judge them because as Christians, they would not be keeping the Sabbath but rather the Lord’s Day for worship. The Old feasts of new moons and festival days were fulfilled in Christ and no longer had to be fulfilled according to Jewish law. This does not condemn implementing other days that would be considered feast days.

At the same time, he does not condemn having feast days, or in not eating meat, or other forms of fasting. In fact Jesus says "When you fast…(Matt 6:16), not If you fast. Furthermore in Acts we see the Council binding a disciplinary fast of not eating things strangled (Acts 15:29). Most non-Catholic Christians have no problems opposing the Church in it’s celebration of feast days, and at the same time participate in some of those same feast days, such as Christmas and Easter. Many also participate in Ascension Thursday, and Ash Wednesday as well.

Condemn? No, Paul does not condemn taking part in feast days and practicing fasting (see Romans 14). He does however take issue in any group that condemns you for not taking part in their rituals. I would apply this to telling people they must/must not eat certain foods, observe certain days, etc.

Forcing someone to do these things or disqualifying another (especially under penalty of sin) Paul condemns.

 

[dronald]

In regards to St. John falling before the angel in revelation, I like to think of it this way. If I was meeting a Catholic Bishop I would kiss his ring as a sign of respect for his authority. But If I was meeting that same Bishop standing next to the Pope, I would kiss the Pope’s ring and not the Bishops (although I’m not sure that’s the proper protocol). Since John was in heaven talking to the greater authority of God, his obeisance should have been to God and not to the angel. Contrast that with other meetings with Angels in the Bible where they are representatives of God, and therefor showing obeisance to them is appropriate because of the authority that they are representing at that time.

I absolutely reject this explanation. It doesn’t make sense at all.

He’s told he was wrong for “worshiping” but there’s nothing in there to assume what you say is true.

 

[spedteacherita]

Don’t forget the example in Genesis where Abraham bowed down before the three angels. There was no rebuke given then either…

Abraham knew the 3 men were God according to the Scripture there:

Genesis 18:1-3
1 Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, 3 and said, "My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by.…

----How cool that must have been!

Blessings!!

Rita

 

[zz912]

Abraham knew the 3 men were God according to the Scripture there:

Genesis 18:1-3
1 Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, 3 and said, "My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by.…

----How cool that must have been!

Blessings!!

Rita

The Lord sent three angels as His messengers, so that was as if the Lord appeared to Abraham. The three angels were NOT God.

And Abraham bowed down to honor them, and it was acceptable to God.

 

[zz912]

The passage I quoted says nothing of that sort. It’s saying that no one else should disqualify YOU; that is, the reader. One ought not to disqualify myself for not being interested in observance of days, asceticism, worship of angels, “Do not touch, do not taste” etc. Similar to how we are commanded by the Catholic Church not to eat certain foods, and are commanded to observe certain days; sometimes under penalty of mortal sin. Paul says not to let anyone do this.

And yet Hebrews 10 tells us to observe the required days of worship set by the Church. And Jesus certainly obeyed all required feasts. Jesus also gave instructions for WHEN we will fast, not IF. I think your opinion about this passage is flawed. You’re reading your personal opinion into the text.

Condemn? No, Paul does not condemn taking part in feast days and practicing fasting (see Romans 14). He does however take issue in any group that condemns you for not taking part in their rituals. I would apply this to telling people they must/must not eat certain foods, observe certain days, etc.

Forcing someone to do these things or disqualifying another (especially under penalty of sin) Paul condemns.

When the Church sets the requirements, it is bound on earth and in heaven. Do you disagree?