The following dialogue occurred on a Seventh Day Adventist discussion board with a gentleman named ‘Ted’. The dialogue focuses Mary’s place in the Catholic Church and other related issues. Ted’s comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue.
In defense of my prior posts, I will not allow the assertions of the Catholic Apologist to stand unchallenged, for to do so would be to allow the readers to admit the possibility that he might be correct, which he is not. He asserts two things:
1) that there are no ante-Nicene fathers who held any opinion other than that of Peter being the rock of Matthew 16:18, and
2) that I falsely accuse the RCC of worshipping Mary.
I will have to defer answering the first assertion for the moment, since it will take some time to pull out the quotes (I can’t do them on my laptop, where most of my work gets done.)
Well, Ted, I will wait for you, and should it slip your memory, I will be happy to remind you. : )
I will instead re-issue my challenge for him to show any such quotes which indicate that Peter himself passed on the 'fact' of his own primacy to his successors. He has been unable to do so, but has substituted quotes which derive from exegesis. While the correctness of those quotes is not is question, their import is, since none of them support the proposition of Petrine supremacy as a received fact. This lack of support for a received fact of Petrine supremacy denies its existence, for in order for it to be passed on as the RCC claims, it MUST have been made clear to the immediate recipients, and they would have recorded that fact.
This is ridiculous. Anyone remotely interested in whether Peter’s authority was unquestioned need only peruse the EXPLICIT writings of the early Fathers testifying to this RECEIVED tradition, not to mention the substantial amount historical, ecclesiological controversies settled by the See of Rome. We have a number of examples of that big, bad Pope in Rome putting his nose in another jurisdiction to settle squabbles. One example is the Antiochan incident with Pope Damasus (366-384 A.D.), Meletius, Paulinus, and St. Basil, and not so much as a PEEP of rebellion. Good lord, Ted, if you read the Antiochan account, I cannot see how you can say that the Pope’s authority was not a received fact.
As for worship of Mary, allow us to inspect the works of Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, 'Saint' of the RCC, whose works are recommended by John-Paul II, and have likewise been recommended by at least five other Popes. By the way, his works are published under the imprimatur of the RCC, making them official and authoritative. He has also been granted status as 'doctor of the church', indicating the very high regard the church has for his work.
== 'Mary, being altogether TRANSFORMED INTO GOD by the grace and glory which transforms all the saints into Him...'
What was that, Ted? What does he say here? “….WHICH TRANSFORMS ALL THE SAINTS INTO HIM.” I.E. NOT JUST MARY. Clearly, you have ripped St. Louis de Montfort’s statement OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE VERY SENTENCE! (Really, Ted, it would have served you better not to include the last clause - at least that way you would have fooled your students!)
== '...even God Himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin.'
Ted, I want you to turn to Luke 2:51. Who was Jesus subject/obedient to?
== 'Heaven, earth and Hell, bend with good will or bad will, to the commandments of the humble Mary, whom He has made sovereign of Heaven and earth, general of His armies, treasurer of His treasures, dispenser of His graces, worker of His greatest marvels, restorer of the human race, Mediatrix of men, the exterminator of the enemies of God, and the faithful companion of His grandeurs and triumphs.'
But, of course. Ted. God uses people to do those things. Read your bible. You will see it is usually those people who are INSIGNIFICANT and HUMBLE who accomplish those mighty deeds. I can think of no better example of this than the Blessed Mother.
== 'A second reason is that the principal mystery we celebrate and honor in this devotion is the mystery of the Incarnation , wherein we can see Jesus only in Mary, and incarnate in her bosom. Hence it is more to the purpose to speak of the slavery of Jesus in Mary, and of Jesus residing and reigning in Mary...'
Have you ever given the incarnation any serious thought, Ted? Think about it for a moment. God residing in a woman for nine months. You have no problem admitting that Jesus was a helpless babe when He was in a manger. Why then is it so difficult that, when He was still within Mary’s womb (that’s why Catholics pray “Blessed is the fruit of you womb” in the Hail Mary), He was also helpless as a babe, and dependent on a creature for 30 YEARS OF HIS LIFE. What does this fact tell you?
== 'Thus, so far from the divine Mary, all absorbed in God, being an obstacle to the perfect attaining union with God, there has never been up to this time, and there never will be, any creature who will aid us more efficaciously in this great work...'
What’s the problem here, Ted? That Mary is called ‘divine’. Well, yes - in the sense that he speaks - “being absorbed in God” - just like we will all be one day. Or is the problem that she will aid us? Well, that’s another topic which I would be happy to discuss later - the communion of saints.
== 'The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her...' 'INSTEAD OF DEVOTION TO THE HOLY VIRGIN, THEY COUNSEL HIM DEVOTION TO JESUS CHRIST.' Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716, canonized 1947) (emphasis added)
Are you paying attention to his warnings to you, Ted? Of course, the word ‘worship’ here does not mean what our current English language demands, but rather only veneration. A little more on this later. And as for 'INSTEAD OF DEVOTION TO THE HOLY VIRGIN, THEY COUNSEL HIM DEVOTION TO JESUS CHRIST. Well, it is unfortunate that you warp the saint’s teaching here, Ted. Why don’t you quote the entire passage so our readers can really see what the saint is trying to say? Until you do that, I’ll have a little charity and not embarrass you.
and Ineffabilis Deus, the official proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. '...to intensify the people's piety and enthusiasm for the homage and the veneration of the Virgin...'
Of course. She is our Mother in faith. We will not deny her the love and respect that is due to her as the Mother of Salvation itself! Why should I offer any less devotion and respect to the MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST than I offer to my *own* mother. One was the means of my physical life; the other a key instrument in my spiritual re-birth.
If you object to homage and veneration paid to Mary, then how do you explain these goodies?
Genesis 18:2-3: Looking up, he saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground, he said...
1 Samuel 25:41: Rising and bowing to the ground, she answered, “Your handmaid would become a slave to wash the feet of my lord’s servants.”
1 Samuel 24:8 So David rose up afterward and went out from the cave and called out after Saul, saying: "My lord the king!" At this Saul looked behind him, and David proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and prostrate himself.
1 Chronicles 29:20: And David went on to say to all the congregation: "Bless, now, YHWHW you God." And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king.
Matthew 18:26: At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’
Ted, are you starting to get the picture here? Or would you like to be educated some more?
== 'Now inasmuch as WHATEVER PERTAINS TO SACRED WORSHIP is intimately connected with its object and cannot have either consistency or durability if this object is vague or uncertain, our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, therefore, while directing all their efforts toward an increase of the devotion to the conception, made it their aim not only to emphasize the object with utmost zeal, but also to enunciate the exact doctrine. [The Immaculate Conception of Mary]'
What’s the problem here, Ted? If you think the passage means that Catholics are to worship Mary by your capitalization of those words, you have completely missed the boat if not the planet. The Immaculate Conception, like other defined dogmas of the Church, PERTAIN to Sacred Worship, but are not the OBJECT THEMSELVES. See what it says? “…is intimately CONNECTED WITH its object…” Why do you insist on such OBFUSCATION of what the Catholic Church teaches? I wonder if there is any use to continuing this dialogue when you insist on such pestilential tactics.
== 'Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and PRAY TO THE MOST BLESSED VIRGIN Mary…' Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854
Notice that Mary is prayed to. This is a form of worship, and ONLY God is to be prayed to. Throughout the Bible, prayer to God is exhorted frequently, and prayer to anyone else is ridiculed by God Himself (Is 44:17; 45:20; 46:7)
Let’s be precise, Ted. What do you MEAN by prayer? If you mean worship/adoration, well then Catholics do not pray to Mary. If you mean prayer to be communication within the body of Christ, then yes Catholic ‘pray’ to Mary. If you want to get into this issue, we can. I won’t go into it too much here, except to give you a list courtesy of Dave Armstrong:
Prayers for the Dead: Tobit 12:12 / 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 & 1 Corinthians 15:29, 2 Timothy 1:16-18
Dead Saints Are Aware of Earthly Affairs: Matthew 22:30 & Luke 15:10 & 1 Corinthians 4:9) / Hebrews 12:1
Dead Saints Intercede For Those On Earth: Jeremiah 15:1) / 2 Maccabees 15:14 / Revelation 6:9-10
Saints Are Intermediaries and Present Our Prayers to God : Revelation 5:8
Dead Saints Appear On Earth to Interact With Men: 1 Samuel 28:12-15 with Ecclesiasticus 46:20 / 2 Maccabees 15:13-16 / Matthew 17:1-3 and 27:50-53 / Revelation 11:3
Guardian Angels: (Psalm 34:7 and 91:11) / Matthew 18:10 / (Acts 12:15) / (Hebrews 1:14)
Angels Are Aware of Our Thoughts:: Luke 15:10 / (1 Corinthians 4:9)
Angels Participate in the Giving of God's Grace: Revelation 1:4
Angels Are Intermediaries and Present Our Prayers to God: Tobit 12:12,15 / Revelation 8:3-4 (compare 5:8)
We should also notice the fraudulent motivations created by the RCC to allow them to invent the intercession of Mary.
Fraudulent motivations? Well. It must have been one helluva fraud to succeed for fifteen centuries UNCONTESTED. But then again, I am talking to someone who does not believe in a TIMELESS religion, but rather someone who believes that in a fundamental truth (sola scriptura) that was only revealed in the sixteenth century by a psychologically disturbed monk. I am, therefore, not surprised by the comment.
== 'Therefore, impelled by love and by THE WISH TO PLACATE GOD for the offenses against His sanctity and His justice and, at the same time, moved by trust in His infinite mercy, we must bear the sufferings of the spirit and of the body THAT WE MAY EXPIATE OUR SINS AND THOSE OF OUR FELLOW BEINGS and so avoid the twofold penalty of 'harm' and of 'sense,' that is to say, the loss of God -- the supreme good -- and eternal fire…Signum Magnum, Pope John Paul II, May 13, 1967
God cannot be placated. We have all offended Him. We have no possibility of expiating our sins or those of others. There is no way for US to make reparations for offenses against God. The only hope is the Cross, which is all-sufficient.
Ted, it does you no service to rip the teaching out of its context. For the honest reader, observe what the Pontiff is saying:
“And then a message of supreme utility seems today to reach the faithful from her who is the Immaculate, the holy, the cooperator of the Son in the work of restoration of supernatural life in souls.[45] In fact, in devoutly contemplating Mary they draw from her a stimulus for trusting prayer, a spur to the practice of penance and to the holy fear of God. Likewise, it is in this Marian elevation that they more often hear echoing the words with which Jesus Christ announced the advent of the Kingdom of heaven: "Repent and believe in the Gospel"[46]; and His severe admonition: "Unless you repent you will all perish in the same manner."[47] Therefore, impelled by love and by the wish to placate God for the offenses against His sanctity and His justice and, at the same time, moved by trust in His infinite mercy, we must bear the sufferings of the spirit and of the body that we may expiate our sins and those of our fellow beings and so avoid the twofold penalty of "harm" and of "sense," that is to say, the loss of God--the supreme good--and eternal fire.[48]
Unless you want to go against the command of Jesus to repent, Ted, you should have no problem with the Pope asking you to obey Jesus: “unless you repent, you will perish…” Protestants forget that REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Go read Colosians 1:24 and maybe, just maybe, you can begin to speak *intelligently* about justification and the role of works in our salvation.
“If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canon 1) Did you get that, Ted? The Catholic Church has condemned Pelgianism (‘works righteousness’) right from the start, which by the way, was over ONE THOUSAND YEARS before the quacks of the deformation came out accusing the Catholic Church of teaching something it has always condemned. But what do you expect from the religion of men?
“Nor should anyone believe that the maternal intervention of Mary would prejudice the predominant and irreplaceable efficacy of Christ, our Savior. On the contrary, it draws its strength from the mediation of Christ of which it is the luminous proof.” (Signum Magnum, 26) (By the way, Ted, Signum Magnum was not written by the current Holy Father, but by Pope Paul VI.)
Assumption of the attributes of God is blasphemy. Those attributes include the status of Savior, which is EXCLUSIVE (Is 43:11; 45:21, see also Is 19:20; 43:3; 45:15; 49:26; 60:16). Yet the RCC claims that status for Mary. (Yes, it denies her the title of savior, but it grants her every aspect of the status other than the title, so in fact it does call her the savior. The issue is the true nature of the thing, not what the RCC would like it to be.)
Don’t be ridiculous, Ted. Let us see some *real* PROOF of your slanders.
== 'THE MOST BLESSED VIRGIN, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one….
Just like Revelation 12 says.
== 'Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, ETERNALLY AT ENMITY WITH THE EVIL SERPENT, AND MOST COMPLETELY TRIUMPHED OVER HIM, AND THUS CRUSHED HIS HEAD WITH HER IMMACULATE FOOT.' Ineffabilis Deus
Very biblical, Ted. Look at Genesis 3:15: who is the man prophesized in Genesis 3:15, Ted? And who is the woman?
We could go on for days in this vein. The RCC has made Mary into God. Whether the dogma is ever proclaimed or not, the fact is that Mary has been made into the Savior. She is to be prayed to and worshipped. I have not taken anything out of context. I have used the plain meaning of the English language. There is no escaping the conclusion. The RCC has as its official dogma IDOLATRY, with Mary as the object.
What do you do with someone who insists on defining his opponents creeds FOR them? Do I say to you, Ted, this is what the Seventh Day Church teaches? Or do I let you tell me what your church teaches and go from there. Now, Ted, in all honesty, it makes for a much more entertaining tit-for-tat when you give your opponent a chance.
RCC apologists will try to split semantic hairs, but there is no possibility of truth in their prevarications. One classic is that even though 1 Tim 2:5 makes an exclusive claim for Jesus as our mediator, the 'mediation' of Mary in no way detracts from Jesus’ mediation since it was proper for there to be a mediator between men and the mediator. That is blasphemous psychobabble. It denies the plain language of the Bible, substituting the convenience of the RCC for God's pure word.
Phychobable eh? Let’s find out. Mediation and intercession IS REPLETE in the bible - both in the Old and New Testament. It is found in many biblical accounts which support the power of intercession of the saints before God’s throne. These are only the TIP of the ice berg. Consider Sodom which was to be saved through Abraham’s intercession (Cf. Genesis 18:20-33), or Namaan, the leper, who was to be cured only through the waters of the Jordan (2 Kings 5:9-14). St. James tells us that “we should pray for one another” (James 5:16), while St. Paul exhorts his brothers and sisters in Christ to “pray for us.” (2 Thessalonians. 3:1). In the book of Job, the author writes, “Call now! Will anyone respond to you? To which of the holy ones will you appeal? (Job 5:1) Later in the same book, God said to Elipaz, “…let my servant Job pray for you; for his prayer I will accept, not to punish you severely.”(Job 42:8). Speaking of Jeremiah, Onias says of the deceased Prophet, “This is God’s prophet Jeremiah, who loves his brethren and fervently prays for his people and their holy city.” (2 Maccabees 15:38). And Jeremiah himself spoke these words to the people of Israel, “Do not listen to them! Serve the king of Babylon that you may live; else this city will become a heap of ruins. If they were prophets, if the word of the Lord of were with them, they would intercede with the Lord of hosts…” (Jeremiah 27:17-18) Saint John recounts in his vision that “the smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.” (Revelation 8:4) It is quite extraordinary indeed given the wealth of Scriptural basis that the power and validity of intercession is even questioned let alone denied, as it is with Protestants. And where, for that matter, does Scripture support the Protestant claim that praying to the deceased is unscriptural? The above scriptural references prove that the exact opposite is true.
To take this question to a more personal level, a number of questions could be asked. Would you be offended, for instance, if I honoured your mother or brother? The answer is quite obviously that you would not be offended but surely honoured. So why should it be any different for Jesus? Have you ever asked your own mother to pray for you? If you can ask your mother to pray for you while she is living, why can’t you continue to do so when she is in the presence of God? This petition is no different than the Catholic praying to Mary, who represents his Spiritual Mother. Justice requires the appropriate reward to be distributed according to the works of the believer. It logically follows, therefore, that God necessarily gives more attention and power to those who have committed themselves to Him while they lived on earth . There is no more perfect creation than Our Blessed Lady, and given her more perfect state with Christ in Heaven, she is more able to help the person petitioning her. The fact that our brothers and sister in Christ now share in the glory of the Beatific vision certainly does not exclude them from our requests. Moreover, if the Blessed Mother or the Saints cannot intercede or mediate for us by praying to God, then it seems to me that neither can any Christian on earth do so. His prayers would be useless, yet while they were still on earth, St. Paul and the other New Testament writers encourage their brothers and sisters to “pray for us”(2 Thessalonians 3:1). Obviously St. Paul thought it was useful although it seems ‘Bible Christians’ do not.
A convert to the Catholic faith, Professor Scott Hahn, who was once a self described ardent anti-Catholic, Bible Christian, Evangelical, Presbyterian Minister, and ‘almost’ Dean of a Presbyterian Seminary, describes Mary’s role beautifully. He writes in his book ‘Rome Sweet Home’, “Mary is God’s masterpiece. Have you ever walked into a museum where an artist was displaying his work? Can you imagine his being offended if you were viewing what he considered to be his masterpiece? Would he resent your looking at that instead of at him? [Would the artist say] ‘Hey you should be looking at me!’ Rather, the artist would receive honour because of the attention you were giving his work. And Mary is God’s work, from beginning to end. And if someone praises one of your children to you, do you interrupt with, ‘Let’s give credit where credit is due?’ No, you know you are being honoured. Likewise, God receives glory when glory and honour when his children are honoured.”
Dr. Hahn’s wife, Kimberly, who herself earned a Masters in Theology at a Protestant seminary, further explains how Mary intercedes for us, “If I could ask my mother on earth to pray for me and know that God would hear her petitions, why couldn’t I ask the Mother of Jesus to pray for me? This was not the same as necromancy - these souls were the living, not the dead. And I was not asking them to foretell the future; I was asking them to intercede for me. I was not approaching them instead of Jesus, but rather going with them to Jesus, just as I did on earth.” In fact, Catholicism does not believe that the Christian must appeal to a saint to ask something for God - indeed, petitioning Jesus directly has always been encouraged. The Catholic faith simply says that Jesus wants to honour his faithfully departed by giving them influence with Him, and thereby reinforce the saint’s life on earth as being truly Christian. The honour is given and made evident to the Christian on earth by a prayer being answered through the intercession of the saint.
If the RCC is the church of God, it should have no trouble adhering to the plain language of the Bible. Instead, it has to twist scripture to force it into a mold that would never be recognized by the Savior or the apostles.
Plain language of the bible? Oh yeah, like what you wrote when commenting on Matthew 16:18: “A received fact is one which is delivered "to me" from a primary authority. As such, Gen 1:1, the fact that God created the earth, is a direct statement of a primary fact from a primary authoritative source. Matt 16:18, by the very fact of our disputation, is not such a direct statement. Gen 1;1 does not allow any other understanding other than God's creative act. MATT 16:18 LACKS CLARITY.”
Heresy means to pick and choose, Ted.
In order that this issue be dealt with properly, we must deal with the specific semantic hairs split by the RCC to justify its un-Biblical position. I begin with a quote referred to me by the Apologist. ':-) Why do we call shoes 'shoes'? We call a thing by what it is.' This principle will define all that we discuss. An object of discussion has its own intrinsic identity which is not necessarily related to the names given to it. In the vernacular, 'If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.'
Def: Latria. The veneration due to God alone for his supreme excellence and to show people’s complete submission to him. … Def. Dulia. The special worship, generally called veneration, given to angels and saints because as friends of God they share in his excellence. Def. Hyperdulia. The veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest form of veneration short of adoration (or latria). (These are abbreviated forms of the official RCC definitions.)
John Calvin rightly comments: '..the thing itself, not the word is in question… their distinction in the end boils down to this: they render honor [cultus] to God alone, but undergo servitude [servitum] for the others. For latreia among the Greeks means the same thing as cultus among the Latins; douleia properly signifies servitus; and yet in Scripture this distinction is sometimes blurred. But suppose we conceived it to be unvarying. Then we must inquire what both words mean; douleia is servitude; latreia, honor. Now no one doubts that it is greater to be enslaved than to honor. For it would very often be hard for you to be enslaved to one whom you are not willing to honor. Thus it would be unequal dealing to assign to the saints what is greater and leave to God what is lesser. Yet many of the old writers used this distinction. What then, if all perceive that it is not only inept but entirely worthless?' Put simply, latria/dulia is a distinction without a difference. Let us continue.
Yes. Let’s continue. I’ll pass on the appetizer…I’m waiting for the main course.
The Hebrew word 'avad' is used for both service and worship. There is no possible way to separate the two thoughts.
Ted, please - don’t insult my intelligence. The same word can have different meanings, depending on its context. Good grief!!!! How many individual words in the English language alone can you come up with that have 2 or more meanings?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Both are included. In the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the OT) avad is translated into Greek with both dulia and latria.
Yes, NOW WHY DOES THE SEPTUAGINT DO THIS ******IF****** the word has the same meaning?
Next note Gal 4:8:
“However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.”
The word for slavery here is duleia. Paul is talking about the same type of service that should be given to the true God, but given to false gods. He uses duleia in Rom 1:1 to identify his own status of servitude to God. Jesus uses it in Matt 6:24 to speak of true service to God. Luke uses it in Acts 20:19 to indicate proper service to God.
Let me help you out here, Ted. But before I do this, I want everyone reading this to understand what Ted is saying so then everyone can understand how his argument collapses at his feet. Ted is saying this:
“Since Catholics use ‘duleia’ in the ‘hair splitting’ distinction between God and the saints, then there should also be a biblical delineation. But there is none since this word ‘duleia’ (above) is also applied to God. Therefore, there is no biblical basis for the distinction between latria and duleia.”
NOW, let me give you a little backdrop to this distinction, Ted. Let me give you a definition and word etymology of latria and dulia (courtesy of Dave Armstrong's work on this subject).
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 430, "Dulia" - italics added, here and below):
(Latinized form of Greek douleia, 'service'). The reverence which, according to Orthodox and RC theology, may be paid to the saints, as contrasted with hyperdulia, which may be paid only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and latria (Gk., latreia), which is reserved for God alone.
This is consistent with the Catholic understanding. This dictionary goes on to define latria as follows (p. 803): “As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone.
The standard non-Catholic lexical reference Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (eds. Gerard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich; abridged edition by Geoffrey Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985) concurs: The Word Group among the Greeks [doulos and cognates] . . . the group has no religious significance for the Greeks . . . The worshipper is philos rather than doulos, so that it makes no sense to describe service of the gods, or life under the eyes of the gods, as douleia. (p. 183)
Likewise, for latreia: in Nonbiblical Greek. . . has such connotations as 'service for reward,' 'labor,' 'bodily care,' and 'service to the gods.' (p. 503)
NOW PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION, Ted (and everyone else):
Douleia can also be located in Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words, in volume 1, p. 139, under "Bondage," and latreia in volume 3, p. 349, under "Service, Serving."
Duleia is Strong's word #1397. It appears five times in the NT, and is translated "bondage" in the KJV (Rom 8:15,21; Gal 4:24, 5:1; Heb 2:15: **********NONE*********** referring to God).
DID YOU GET THAT EVERYONE? The word ‘duleia’ is applied to beings OTHER THAN GOD. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, it is a word that ************CAN************** be applied to God, BUT not NECESSARILY or EXCLUSIVELY be so. Ted’s whole argument rests on the exclusivity of the word applying to God ALONE in order for him to be able to erase the lines of distinction between dulia and latreo.
And concluding….
It is related to the following cognates:
•#1398 douleuo "to be a slave" 25 times in NT •#1399 doule "handmaiden" / "female slave" 3 times, including Mary's description of herself: Lk 1:38,48 •#1400 / 1401 doulon / doulos "servant" / "slave" 127 times •#1402 douloo: "make a servant" 8 times
Latreia is Strong's word #2999. It appears 5 times in the NT, and is translated "service" or "divine service" in the KJV - in reference to God (Jn 16:2; Rom 9:4, 12:1; Heb 9:1,6). It is related to cognate latreuo, Strong's word #3000, usually rendered "serve" or "service." It appears 21 times in the NT.
So, as usual, so-called exclusively "Catholic" words are found to have a completely biblical basis, and to follow the distinction even present in the pre-biblical Greek etymology, since the Latin dulia and latria are directly derived from the Greek.
Next, in the Vulgate, Jerome translates both douleia and latreia into the same term, servio. Since the Vulgate is the official source text for RCC Bibles, it ought to be authoritative. Since the Vulgate does not recognize a difference, we can only conclude that there is no difference between the two words. The issue is what dulia and latria are, not what the RCC would like them to be. They are both worship, which is to be granted ONLY to God. Dulia (or hyperdulia) is idolatry, when addressed to anyone or anything other than God.
Ted. I think you have taken enough of a pounding above. I will show a little compassion in not exposing your deduction abilities (or lack thereof) with the Vulgate. But, if you want me to, I will be happy to do so in the next post. Just let me know. : )
Our task is to understand what God put in the word, not to push our own ideas into the word.
I agree, Ted, you should not push your own ideas on the word. Now, just when exactly are you going to stop doing it?
Until the RCC reforms itself, it is not God’s church.
When the RCC reforms itself (i.e. read ‘changes its doctrines) , it WILL NOT BE God’s church. On the other hand, the Protestant rebellion just keeps reforming and reforming and reforming……and rebelling, and rebelling and rebelling….
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
August 17, 1999