The Crucifix

[Tibby]

Good to know we are taking our information from a bias source that used both Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, Petro.

tibby,

Sheeeshshs!!!

Do you ever read anything before you engage tongue;

The Url I gave you is specifically for Parish Priest, this is the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is why it is a condensed article of the Council of Trent teaching of the 1st Commandment and observance and the uses of images.

What are you talking about? You are telling me this site that I was referring to:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

Is a Catholic site used by Parish Preist? Um... no, it isn‘t...  So, the real question is, do you ever read anything before you engage tongue?

Oh, by the way, I compared your little “Article for the Priest” with the Catechism for the Parish you posted, and I can’t kind any of the quotes they cited in that web page in the catechism.  

[avemaria]

Ok - we are all pretty intelligent here right?  Let's just talk plainly ok?

From what I can see there are only - what? three Catholics here - maybe four?  I recognize we are on your "turf" and respect that fact - humbly.

Since I am a devout - practicing - Roman Catholic Christian, who attends daily Mass when possible and engages in all the Sacraments pertinent to my vocation in life, I can tell all of you non-Catholics that when I am in prayer - on my knees - on the kneeler - in the Church - and I am glancing up at my Savior upon the cross - looking solemnly at His bruised and battered body - in prayer and meditation - I can honestly tell all of you - I am NOT worshipping the wood of that cross, or the plaster which Jesus was sculpted out of.

I do not say in prayer, "Grant my request oh wooden idol."  I am not trying to be flip, but you have a backwards view of our form of prayer and ways of showing devotion.  How could you possibly know if you aren't a Catholic?

I liken it to this example.  You have a dear relative that has just passed.  Your heart is aching.  You have his/her picture in a frame.  You are holding it close to you in sorrow.  You are calling to mind good times you had with this relative.  You stare at the picture some more.  You bow your head and perhaps shed a few tears.

As an outsider to the situation, would I say to myself, "this man is bordering on idolatry the way he is 'worshipping' that picture."  This sounds absurd doesn't it?  Silly even.  You aren't worshipping or honoring the metal frame.  You aren't worshipping or honoring the glass which holds the picture.  You aren't even worshipping the developed picture behind the glass.  You are recalling the memory of the person.  You are showing respect to the memory of that person you are grieving for correct?  Would it not seem completely irrational to say you are worshipping an idol?
This is exactly what you all are saying to us.  You are NOT Catholics and therefore you have no idea the state of our hearts when we are in prayer to Our Lord do you?   You should not judge what is going through our heads or hearts while in prayer.  Do you think we are so stupid as to be worshipping an idol without full knowledge of such?  Would I say to you, "Oh by the way, did you know you were just worshipping an idol while holding onto that picture earlier?"  Of course I wouldn't because it would be utterly ridiculous to even suggest such a thing!

I have read through this topic and it seems no one "has ears to hear" what we - Catholics - are telling you.  We could say the same of you with your leather-bound Bibles.  The Bible is the be-all/end-all for you Bible-Believing Protestants.  You bow in prayer with your Bible in your hands.  Are you worshiping the leather or are you speaking to your Lord?

If you are NOT Catholic - you are entitled to question something you have read or something the Church teaches.  We, who are Catholics have an obligation to explain to you said practice.  We have NO REASON to lie to you all!  Do you think we are saying to each other, "Better be careful what you say to these non-Catholics lest they find out we are idol worshippers!"  Come on!

Only God can judge the heart and only God knows where our hearts are in prayers.  You cannot possibly tell US what it is WE believe if you ARE NOT EVEN Catholic.

Until you sit in the pews at Mass daily - or until you have read the Catechism and read Sacred Scripture and are thoroughly engrained in Catholicism - do not TELL us what we believe.  Question us, certainly.  But you aren't in a position to TELL us what we believe.

I say this in all humility to you.  I have sat where you all sit - in the pews of the Baptist church and can tell you that you really will never know Catholicism unless you study Catholicism from Traditional Catholic sources.  Anything else is a twisted misconception born out of hatred.

[Ambassador4Christ]

Until you sit in the pews at Mass daily - or until you have read the Catechism and read Sacred Scripture and are thoroughly engrained in Catholicism -

You know why the Roman religion call them pews

PU

[avemaria]

IHM, you know my request....

[Petro]

Good to know we are taking our information from a bias source that used both Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, Petro.

tibby,

Sheeeshshs!!!

Do you ever read anything before you engage tongue;

The Url I gave you is specifically for Parish Priest, this is the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is why it is a condensed article of the Council of Trent teaching of the 1st Commandment and observance and the uses of images.

What are you talking about? You are telling me this site that I was referring to:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

Is a Catholic site used by Parish Preist? Um... no, it isn‘t...  So, the real question is, do you ever read anything before you engage tongue?

Oh, by the way, I compared your little “Article for the Priest” with the Catechism for the Parish you posted, and I can’t kind any of the quotes they cited in that web page in the catechism.  

??  say what???

You're getting lazy, at such a young age, so what do you want me to do.

I gave you all you need to find it...

lazy = sloppy teaching...you might remember this.

You need to start developing good study habits, if you want to teach religion to people..

Well on second thought maybe not.


Petro

[Tibby]

I hear the lazy part all the time. I'm use to it. But, who cares. I perferre to think of it as relaxed  

How is that lazy, anyways? You gave me a site, and later told me Priests us this site. I am telling you, no, this is an anti-Catholic site, Priests do not use it. Nothing lazy about that, just telling you the truth. I know many priest from all over, and even a few monks, and none of them have every used that site. I can go and ask them all, but I know they will say know. Plus, I'm to lazy to ask them all

Ok, for real, I did look thru and mini-Catechism you gave and compared it with the article gave. Maybe it was worded differently, but I could not find the passages he was referring to.

Besides, many priest follow the 2 year Liturgy set out by the Bishop. And I have yet to see one where the Sunday mass it about why Catholics are False

[Reba]

I personaly dont like the crucifix ...  the reason HE LIVES!

But....

 I love the scripture....

Isa 53:1-54:1
53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


KJV

Are not these words writing a picture on our hearts, a picture of the Crucifixion?

[Petro]

I hear the lazy part all the time. I'm use to it. But, who cares. I perferre to think of it as relaxed  

Well if people are telling you, you are lazy, you need to examine your definition of what you consider relaxed.

How is that lazy, anyways? You gave me a site, and later told me Priests us this site. I am telling you, no, this is an anti-Catholic site, Priests do not use it.

Haven't I said to you, you do not comprehend what you read??

I never even insinuated catholic priest use this site, you assumed I said this, you are so lazy, you don't even bother to read, what you respond to..I don't know that they do, what is clear to me is that this written for parish priests, but your right they (priests) probalby don't read this nonsense.

Nothing lazy about that, just telling you the truth.

Truth, what is the truth??

I know many priest from all over, and even a few monks, and none of them have every used that site. I can go and ask them all, but I know they will say know. Plus, I'm to lazy to ask them all

I believe you...

Ok, for real, I did look thru and mini-Catechism you gave and compared it with the article gave. Maybe it was worded differently, but I could not find the passages he was referring to.

Well.....what else can I say??

It doesn't surprise me.....for sure..

Blessings,
Petro

[avemaria]

Reba - "I personaly dont like the crucifix ...  the reason HE LIVES!"

I hear that a lot and I guess coming from a certain point of view I can see why you would say that

I rejoice, as well, in the fact that Jesus Christ conquered death through the Ressucrection, but I suppose meditating on His death has a whole other impact on my personal spirituality and this is why I love the Crucufix.

There is joy - yes - in the spiritual journey, but I think remembering what He went through helps keep us focused about the horror of sin.  God bless.

[Tibby]

You posted this link:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

I visited the link, and replied “Good to know we are taking our information from a bias source that used both Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, Petro.”

You quoted my post an replied “The Url I gave you is specifically for Parish Priest, this is the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is why it is a condensed article of the Council of Trent teaching of the 1st Commandment and observance and the uses of images.”

Clearly, the link you posted, the link I was referring to is not the link Parish Priests use. Now there was another link that was, but we where not referring to this link. Perhaps you thought I was referring to a different link, or perhaps you just are trying to be difficult, but it is clear that the link I talked about it not used by parish priests.

This is the truth, it is that simple. Anyone who wishes and follow our posts as I told it, and will see it is clearly truth.

[Symphony]

avemaria:  Ok - we are all pretty intelligent here right?


  Well, um....



     

     

[michael_legna]

I posted the information in its entirety,

Yes the material from Fordham you did, my mistake.   And Fordham University is a Catholic Institution and it’s site is trustworthy but I saw nothing which discussed worshipping icons.  That is unless you include the quote which you misunderstood.  I say you misunderstood it based on how you incorrectly bolded an section of it emphasizing certain words in such a way as to imply a conclusion opposite to what is intended by the text, but I will point that out explicitly later in this post.

site I gave you is a Catholic site, not an anti-catholic as, these others have charged, clearly it is the condensed version of the Councils edicts, note, that this version is for "Parish Priests", presumbaly for instruction and execution of these decisions made.

The URL the others were referring to is for is for an anti-Catholic site.  http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm
and from that site you did post incomplete partial statements and quotes of incomplete sentence showing no context.

So you have one site offering true Catholic positions on topics saying nothing about worshipping icons and another antiCatholic site presenting incorrect statements about Catholic doctrine.  Neither prove your point.

I gave you both the catholic website which is a condensed version, even I see that it does not match the version, I printed from the reference at the end of my post, if you can't find it, How can you know what you know and say is true??

I am not sure I follow the grammar of your last sentence.  
Please explain your question if I do not address it somewhere along the line here.

You sound a little smarter the the ave, and tibby, but don't be like them, they are lazy, and would rather have themselves heard, than seek the information out, it is all there, you need to have your fingers do a little walking;

You are being unfair toward Ave Maria and Tibby.  If you are presenting an argument it is up to you to provide the evidence.  If you are too lazy to go to the website and copy the information into your post then you have no room to criticize those who don’t want to do you leg work for you.  I have done that legwork for you repeatedly and maybe that has gotten you spoiled, but not everyone is going to the lengths I have to help you build your case just to get to the truth, and they have no moral prerogative to do so.

For this very reason it was destroyed, because burning incense to it(2 Ki 18:4), was considered a form of worship, you can rationalize it anyway you want, the fact is, it was destroyed because it was used for something which was otherwise made for.
You can argue that the fiery serpent was not the object of the veneration and honer expressed by the burning of the incense in its presence, nevertheless the scriptures are carefull to tell us why it was destroyed.

The serpent was destroyed because they were worshipping it.  But that worship was in the form of burning incense as an offering to a god, Nehushtan they believed the image personified, not just because they were burning incense in front of it.  the key is the intent and the idea of personification.  That is not the case with Catholic’s use of statues and other focuses.  They do not believe the images personify anything or even represent anything that is worthy of worship.  The Israelites pray today facing the wailing wall, and in biblical times prayed facing the Temple or Jerusalem or the East depending on where in the world they were, yet they do not intend worship of any of those items.   You have to remember that sin is associated with intention.  If Catholics pray using a statue as a point of focus with no intention of worshipping the statue itself then they aren’t worshipping the statue.

The case of images of sanits, angels, Jesus, Mary, the Cross, are specifically made by the Catholic church for the express purpose of praying to them, which is a form of worship, manifested by their position and attitude while performing this duty.

No that is not their intent!  Your argument is what is referred to as an appeal to an unknowable fact.  You cannot possibly know what another’s intent is and therefore have no right to judge it.  The Catholic Church clearly teaches in all its documents (other than the one you found on that questionable website) that worship is to be reserved for God alone.

Show me one quote from a verifiable official Catholic source (preferably the Catechism) that says Catholics are to worship statues, and then be sure to provide the whole quote in context.  

These aren’t new arguments.  This was all argued and decided back in the 8th and 9th centuries when the iconoclasts tried to prove this point.  The result was that after almost two hundred years of serious debate the Church made it clear that images were allowable because they were not honored, venerated or especially were not worshipped.  Do you think that they have reversed their position or somehow slipped it past 1200 years and 10 billion Catholic believers only to be discovered by you?  

Acts 21:25 tells us to keep ourselves from things offered to idols.  The intent here is to avoid any intention of worship directed to them.  But in 1 Cor 8:4 we see that we can eat things offered to idols as long as we know that idols are nothing.  Because then there can be no intent to worship.  You cannot worship something you know doesn’t exist.  The Israelites erred in regard to the serpent because they believed that the serpent god existed.  Catholics (who understand and follow the teachings of the Church) know that the statues and even the saints represented by the statues do not deserve worship.  So there can be no worship in those cases, just as there is no worship for a Christian who eats food offered to idols.  

I have had to break this post in two pieces so look for the rest to follow.

[michael_legna]

Part 2

I am fully convinced, those who say, we know what worship is or isn't !; are, those who really don't or can't tell, inspite of what is written in the 2d Commandment.

I will admit that there are Catholics who blur this line and offer Mary especially too much respect that verges on worship.  But that it their own failing it is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Do you feel confident enough in your faith to eat from the altar of an idol?  I suspect you do.  I am the same in regards to my use of images to focus my prayer and worship of God.

What obscures it for them is the fact that the second commandment says nothing about image or idol worship.

The Catholic churhces 2d commandment reads as follows:

"You shall not take name of the Lord your God in vain."(from; Duet 5:11)

Omitting verse 6-10, verse 5 says nothing of image or idol worship; it is simply the version recounted by Moses.

I don't know whether to hope you came up with this on your own (so you aren't just copying and pasting from some biased website), or that you are not this misinformed and did copy this from some website.

This is one of the oldest weakest arguments presented by Catholic haters.  The 2nd commandment you quote is a paraphrased line from a child's catechism; a simplified presentation for 2nd and 3rd graders.  The commandments as presented in the official Catholic Catechism, the one used by adults, has the whole quote directly from scripture.  This includes the part concerning images and idol worship; so your argument that this confusion (you say exists but have yet to show does exist for most Catholics) cannot be due to any teaching of the Catholic Church.  

it becomes easy to accept the word of of those considered more wiser and learned than ones self, which is what the unlettered do presentlty and did then.

It is easier and much wiser generally.  The scriptures are a complex body of knowledge that can only be interpreted in its entirety.  All verse must be in agreement, so the interpretation of all verse must be in agreement and the only way to do that is to know all scriptures at once.  This is impossible for man, that is why one should learn from the work of those who have gone before us and combined 2000 years of research.  This is especially true for the average Christian who has neither the time nor the resources to study in the original languages and learn the underlying history and culture behind the writings and who they were directed to.  This is the fundamental reason sola scriptura is an error.  The scriptures are materially sufficient, they contain everything we need to know; but they are not formally sufficient, they do not contain everything we need to understand them.

If you read the old English carefully in the area you bolded you see that the instruction is that they are NOT to be worshipped. The area in question reads as follows: "and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; NOT that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them;"

Not so, bowing, praying, burning incense to an image is a form of worship, forbidden by the second commandment.

No, bowing, praying and burning incense do not constitute worship.  An action cannot of itself constitute a sin, otherwise merely eating from the altar of an idol would be a sin and we know it is not.  Intent is the only determiner of sin.   If you bow and pray and burn incense with the intent of offering worship, then you are worshipping but you can certainly do all of the actions toward one subject with your intentions directed toward God and the worship goes to God.

Besides this you missed my point, you had bolded the words "to be worshipped"  in the phrase "on account of which they are to be worshipped" and I was pointing out that you had the reading wrong with regard to that implication put forth by your choice in bolding.  But then rather than admit your mistake you (as you have with every point I have shown you to be mistaken on) simply move on to another attack.  How many times do I have to show you are wrong before you give up these ideas?

I hope I did a better job using the quotes this time.

[Petro]

michael,

At your reply #71, you said the following;

The serpent was destroyed because they were worshipping it.  But that worship was in the form of burning incense as an offering to a god,

"But that worship was in the form of burning incense as an offering to a god,  

How true,   followed by:

Nehushtan they believed the image personified, not just because they were burning incense in front of it.

This is not true....there is no evidence given in the scriptures  to support your claim, the image personified anything...

You reiterate this at reply #72, when you state;

No, bowing, praying and burning incense do not constitute worship.  An action cannot of itself constitute a sin, otherwise merely eating from the altar of an idol would be a sin and we know it is not.  Intent is the only determiner of sin.  If you bow and pray and burn incense with the intent of offering worship, then you are worshipping but you can certainly do all of the actions toward one subject with your intentions directed toward God and the worship goes to God.

While the word Nehushtan means "something made of copper", it only appears in the scripture one time and was not the name given to it by those who worshipped it, (neither did it personfy anyone) read the verse carefully, it was called Nehushtan by King Hezekiah, who destroyed it, simply because "the children of Israel did burn incensense to it", the name by which it was called, would be like saying;

it is an image of Mary or, it is an image of stone....in the case of her statute.

Speaking of Mary; this is exactly what is done by Catholic priests when celebrating solemn mass in honor of Mary Immaculate, they offer up incense to her image.

(So as not to mistake what I am saying, note that the mass is in honor to her and, not God)

If you doubt what I have said, read the verse carefully for yourself;

2 Ki
1  Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2  Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
3  And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
4  He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

There is no evidence this bronze image had become a god in the sense of the word to the Israelites, the scripture simply says, they did burn incense to it.  

This was the reason WHY it was destroyed.

When you start adding your spin to Gods Word, naturally it is to justify,.... what you do.


Tell me now, how do you differentiate worship to God, and worship to Mary's image in the solemn mass given in her honor??

Worshipping anyone or anything other than God is Idolatry.

In the case of celebrating a high mass in the honor of any saint or thing, it for sure, is idolatry, since it is in that things honor that the occasion of the celebration is,

Oh yes,  Gods name may be invoked during the celebration, nevertheless, it is in honor of someone ot something other than God.  

Idolatry, then is more than just calling a man made image God (which is the simple mans definition of idolatry) and worshipping a stone or a stick. There very few people in the modern world that would entertain such an absurdity. It is doubtfull men in the ancient world believed that way either.

I suspect their images merely represented their Gods.

Idolatry then, is directing honor, praise, glory, respect and affection that rightly belongs to God, to some created person or thing.

For instance, greed is idolatry because the greedy man has focused his affections on things rather than God (Col 3:5)

By the same token, praying to any other than God is IDOLATRY, inasmuch as the one asking fixes his hope on someone or something other than God ........

For Example:

When Catholics pray to Mary, as instructed to do so by Ligouri, in the "Glories of Mary":

"O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therfore we have recourse, to these alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil...........Thou (Mary ast my only hope........Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art trully loving and solicitous for our salvation.......My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach." (From Judge Fairly, p.5).

Tell me,  to whom is this prayer directed at, and on whom does one place his hopes on for a response??
 
......,  to help or to save, and ascribes to someone other than God the attributes or omnipresence (the ability to hear the request), omniscience (the ability to know what is best), and even omnipotence (the ability to give what is being asked for).


So you see, this is exactly why, I say, that those who practice such things are so confused, they are unable to distinguish what real worship to God is, from the worship they say is not worship directed to God.

How can you tell??


Blessings, Petro

[avemaria]

I doubt you will read this, as you are more interested in getting "your point across" as you accused me and others of...

Do you know what it means to "worship"?  Obviously you do not.

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (hyper [beyond]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is beyond the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakah] you (49:." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."

Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

Taken in part from the Catholic Answers Website