Worship, veneration, or merely intercession? A perennial topic is praying to, at, or through “saints,” which, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, is not “worship” at all and therefore has nothing to do with idolatry. Equally inflated is the supposed justification of Catholicism’s learned and practiced paganism. A Catholic “explanatory magazine” attempts to explain it.
Justifying a contradictory doctrine
Present something as highly complicated and extensive, underscore this with one or two (supposed) case studies, and suddenly you can cobble together a justification from the tangle of your own fabricated arguments. Furthermore, the sheer number of details presented makes you appear highly competent. “He really knows his stuff.” This approach serves almost any desired purpose, no matter how outlandish the narrative. Even though the simplicity of the situation clearly reveals that it’s utter nonsense and completely wrong.
The Catholic educational publication “Catholic Answers” provides such an example on the perennial topic of “veneration of saints.” Of course, one can do this, since this veneration of saints has long since established itself as a tradition and is, moreover, necessary.
The Bible is simple, clear, unambiguous
God’s view on this is described in its clear simplicity, for example, in Exodus 20:4-5, the “original” 2nd commandment:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:…“
Manipulation is equally clear
This striking simplicity and clarity of the Second Commandment, which is quite obvious to everyone, was not coincidentally attacked and summarily swept under the rug by the Roman Catholic Church very soon after its promulgation in Rome. While this commandment still appears as an appendage to the First Commandment, it is only in the Catechism, not in the tabular listing of the Ten Commandments.
It no longer exists; instead, the resulting gap is filled by all subsequent commandments shifting down the list, and the last commandment is divided into two commandments so that the number “10” is reached again (Info)
Now it gets more complicated.
As always, it is therefore merely a definition of what is being asserted, even if a doctrine, upon sober examination, is easily recognizable as a total contradiction of biblical statements. Various distinctions are also defined in this way, intended to differentiate between worship, veneration, and intercession. Defined by the church itself—by whom or what else?!
Similarly, the introductory sentence to a supposed justification of the veneration of the doctrine-enlightener as a saint (Source):
“The Catholic Church has defined the essential difference between the honor we give to God through prayer and the honor we give to the saints.”
Really no meaning?
In contrast, devout Catholics kneel before “holy” figures as a matter of course, especially when it comes to the Catholic version of Mary (Info). They don’t “worship” her, after all, but merely offer veneration and ask for her intercession. As if it were irrelevant whether one kneels before a wooden, stone, marble, or plastic figure or not.
Okay, let’s be honest, if the prayers aren’t directed to the statue, as a kind of symbol, a conduit through which the petitions are addressed, but ultimately irrelevant, because that would be idolatry, what if this devout Catholic did the same thing, simply replacing the Marian statue with a depiction of Martin Luther, Chancellor Angela Merkel, or Alice Schwarzer? This flock of the Church would be back on his feet faster than the blink of an eye.
Argument of a Protestant
The Catholic magazine therefore addresses a commentary by the “Protestant apologist” James White. He was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix, USA, and, among numerous other books, also wrote “The Roman Catholic Controversy,” which is quoted in the article. In his book, White emphasizes that the New Testament makes no distinction between “dulia” and “latria” in the context of religious worship. According to the author, White thus contradicts the Roman Catholic Church’s definition at the Council of Nicaea in 787 that “latria” means the worship of God alone.
Galatians 4:8 used the Greek word “edouleusate” (to be enslaved), which is the verb form of “dulia”.
“Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.” (Galatians 4:8).
When Paul spoke of the Galatians’ former idolatrous veneration, he used the word “dulia” accordingly. James White writes:
“Are we to assume, then, on the basis of the Roman Catholic definitions, that since they only served these idols, that they were free from the charge of idolatry, since they didn’t give latria as well? Of course not! Their service of these idols was wrong whether the term latria or dulia was used.“
The counter-argument
The Catholic author has the answer to that. He counters that White assumes a Catholic would deny the meaning of the Greek word “edouleusate,” that it refers to the Galatians’ former idolatry. However, this is not the case, according to the author. Catholics acknowledge that the worship (douleia) the Galatians performed for the false gods was idolatry.
The Bible shows, based on other passages, that the word “doulos” stands on the one hand for services to other people (services), and on the other hand for service to God or the gods.
Necessary redefinition
Such examples demonstrate that it is not the word itself that is decisive, but rather whether and how a bow should be interpreted as worship. Since languages change over time, new situations can arise, the author argues. This must be addressed with precise definitions. Therefore, the Church “developed” a definition to distinguish between “dulia” and “latria.” According to this definition, “latria” means divine worship, and “dulia” means human veneration, including that of the saints.
The Church of Rome denies itself
How convenient. You (re)define the meaning of words and suddenly you have a justification for the idolatry that is actually practiced. This also opens the door to hairsplitting between worship, veneration, and intercession. Yet it is the Roman Catholic Church itself that actually speaks plainly. Specifically, in the “Catholic Encyclopedia” (1908), Volume IV, page 153:
“Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worshop which beongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of ‘graven things’ is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).“
It contains everything that the Roman Catholic Church, which justifies its practices today with all sorts of semantic and rhetorical tricks and ploys, vehemently denies.
Catholicism – “Baptized Paganism”
“Reverence is not worship,” goes a common argument. But the exact opposite is actually stated quite clearly by the Catholic Church itself. Period! It is outright idolatry, just as practiced by the people of Galatia, and by many other nations as well. “Roman Catholicism is nothing other than Babylonian paganism,” many Protestant voices (once) declared. And they were right.
And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Revelation 9:20-21, to the 6th trumpet
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
