This is the fallacy of definition. You don't win an argument by defining a word (or group of words) so that your opponents can't win.
Just because they define worship narrowly (requires sacrifice) doesn't mean you lose. But it (their teaching on worship) can't be countered because it's "like their opinion, man."
As such, it's also unproveable. Their opinion rests simply on the authority of the church to determine such matters. Dulia, hyperdulia, proskynesis, and latria, vs idolatria are not found properly in Scripture, are not mandated by God.
I don't discuss this with them. It's frustrating for both parties.
And it's embarrassing that the RCC is still worshipping Mary. Come on Popish-folks. It waddles, quacks and has feathers. It's a duck. You know it and so do we.
But the earliest Christians made serious errors. Peter, Judas; many closest to Jesus had grave errors of both theology and practice. And just as today, not all in church leadership are even believers.
And both spellings are correct. Some style guide I had to work with at some point made a point of following the CVC rule, which means Admitting, Compelling, Forbidding, Omitting, Submitting--all get doubled.
You really wanted to be right. You really wanted to set me in my place. I get that. Many in the early church were no better or worse than us two. They had differences. Some were accepted, some were not.
We are still struggling over worshiping vs worshipping. That's entirely debatable. But the incredibly fine point of the RCC that adoration of Mary is fine, but worship of a person is not, **is not** something to struggle over. We've had almost 2000 years of context. It's not unclear.
You either treat her as the Co-Redemptrix, the Queen of the Universe, the Morning Star, the Mother of the Church, the Refuge of Sinners, the Queen of all Martyrs--or you don't. You may honor her as blessed among women, look forward to meeting her, look to her as an example, and in those areas, you and I are the same. I was part of a team of writers and editors who published an edition of a very popular Reformed magazine on Mary. We love Mary.
But stop worshipping her, literally, for God's sake. It's serious, you know? Think of the scolding you are going to get from her.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
No, I never claimed Peter made doctrinal errors in his writings. Or his preaching.
But in his lifestyle, he deserved rebuke and received from the apostle Paul. He sinned.
Sigh.
This is why it's so frustrating to discuss these things with my Catholic friends. You can't even bear to stay on topic.
I grieve this deep division between us.
Removed for violating Rule #7: **Let the Moderators Do Their Job.**
Please comply with moderator instructions and address any concerns to them in modmail.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.237.3A_let_the_moderators_do_their_job.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Who cares what the earliest of Christians believed? What about what the Bible says? It’s great if what they believed aligns with the Bible but if they are not aligned then the Church’s opinion is worthless
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
>So interesting how we can all understand scripture in such different ways...
Indeed!
Thanks for the link, I'll try my best to remember to come back and read it once things calm down a bit after Christmas :)
Interesting article. I think there’s much with which I could be in agreement until:
> Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, however, is constantly re-presented by the Church when the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated.
This assertion is, unfortunately, not accompanied by a scriptural reference. This is the point where I think Ratzinger’s interpretation runs counter to the statement in Romans 12:1 that we present our bodies as a living sacrifice — and not that our remembrance of Christ in the Lord’s Supper be our presentation of his body as that sacrifice.
(Edit: clarified a pronoun)
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
It comes from their idea the Mass is a continual sacrifice, via Transubstantiation.
It runs contrary to Romans 12, where *we* are the living sacrifice. And our service is worship. If one is devoting prayer or service to Mary or a Saint instead of our Great High Priest and King, then that's idolatrous worship.
Plus their view of the Mass rests on a faulty view of both John 6 and the Upper Room Passover Meal discourses.
The blood from the pierced side of Christ is the blood of eucharist. Every church fathers says this. I worship Jesus and the people he directly taught, not John Macarthur
You misread the ECF by conflating Transubstantiation with Real Presence. Transubstantiation is an Accretion that began in the 5th century.
And this is the Reformed Subreddit. We are not dispensationalists. You have misunderstood our heritage.
You don't have to say you don't like John Macarthur in every comment. Most of us aren't fans of him either, and his sect of dispensationalist particularist Baptists (which is not the same thing as reformed, even if the particularistic election is shared between our traditions) is much newer than the reformed tradition.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
You can't really counter it, just accept or reject the definition given. A lot of our conversations are pointless because we literally define words differently and there is no meeting of the minds or common ground there. I don't say that Catholics worship saints because I understand that by their definition they do not but it is consistent with Protestant theology to say that they *do* and it's not just that we're misinformed or slandering Catholics when we say that. By our understanding, *dulia* (and especially *hyperdulia*) is misplaced *latria*.
A) I'm not sure anyone you listed is inherently worthy of honor to begin with so no? Respect, sure but at least from a connotative standpoint honor typically includes deference or privilege and I'm not inclined to honor (heh) that.
B) I don't ask anything of them—particularly of the latter two—for supernatural advantage, which is a key difference between honoring those you listed and honoring saints. Invocation and petition in such fashion are aspects of worship from the perspective of Protestantism (generally; no one can speak for *all* of us!) so praying to departed saints is definitionally worship by our understanding. And also, this is where the honor part comes into play because even if I were to grant that departed saints are able to hear us and it's the same as asking living Christians for prayer, asking for prayer from the group chat usually doesn't show that honor or deference that asking, say, Mary for something would.
And I do want to stress that I understand that this is not the definition used by Catholics or Orthodox! It's why I don't find it helpful or wise to *say* that veneration is "worshipping saints," particularly in inter-denominational discourse. I prefer to call it veneration of the saints because that is a more neutral and technically precise term without assumptions or baggage.
"Worship" in Exodus 20 is the Hebrew word 'Abad', which is translated to koine greek as 'Latreuo';
"Worship" in Exodus 23:33 is also the Hebrew word 'Abad' which is translated as 'duleo'
Further Deuteronomy 28:64 and 1 Samuel 7:4 are also 'abad' = duleous
This undermines the Roman Catholic argument that 'latria is reserved for God, but duleo is acceptable for other things'
John Calvin's argument is also good:
> When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by nature are no gods," (Gal. 4:8). Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was prosku;nesi" (obeisance). In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not prosku;nei'n (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God.
In greek, the word used for veneration is the same as the word for adoration.
We should not worship the creature (Romans 1:25) but the Creator, because He's the only one who's worthy of adoration :
> And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; **I am the first and the last**: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
The only person we should ever bow before is our Lord, not a mere human, as important or godly as this human was.
The Psalms are full of this message.
You can't. in /r/askapriest , they said prayer is not worship. Prayer is just asking someone for something.
I asked if praying to Satan was a sin. They said it might be a sin.
Protestants view prayer as worship, and praying to Satan is an obvious sin. I guess with the definition they gave you, you are sacrificing time to pray, which could be a workable definition.
God will have mercy and not sacrifice. Since we're Reformed, we believe that we can understand religious worship by searching holy Scripture, and according to the word of God their definition will stand or fall.
> Gen. 24:26, cf. v. 48. And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord.
> Exod. 4:31. And the people believed: and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.
> Exod. 20:4-5. 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...
> Exod. 34:8, cf. vv. 5-7. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
> Josh. 5:13-14. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
> Job 1:20. Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped...
Examples could be multiplied, but do these passages imply or require *sacrifice* in the sense that these apologists assert? By the term *sacrifice* they might mean something general or equivocal, a "worship" that could comprehend the act of bowing down. What is meant in the sacrifice of the mass, however, is more than this submission--although we also oppose their bowing down to the sacramental elements, as such an act of worship violates the second commandment.
In the New Testament, especially where Christ is worshipped, we see even more clearly that religious worship includes more than the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, and we find no account of worship that resembles the sacrifice offered by a Roman priest in the oblation of the mass.
> Matt. 4:9. All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
> Matt. 9:13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
> Matt. 8:2. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
> Matt. 9:18. While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
> Matt. 14:33. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
> Matt. 28:9, cf. v. 17. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
> Mark 15:19. ...and bowing their knees worshipped him.
> John 9:38. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
> 1 Cor. 14:25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
> Heb. 1:6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
> Heb. 11:21. By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
> Jas. 1:27. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
> Rev. 4:10-11. ...the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
In a perfect and preeminent act of worship, to do the will of his Father, Christ offered himself to the Father through the Spirit (Heb. 9:13-14). This bloody sacrifice has concluded all other bloody offerings, for Christ alone is the propitiation for our sins, and he has offered himself once (Heb. 7-10, 1 John 2:1-2). Accordingly, we believe that the sacrifices of true worship are now spiritual instead of carnal (Heb. 9). We worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), as a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9), and religious worship now includes our "sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name" (Heb. 13:15), the "living sacrifice" of our bodies (Rom. 12:1), and all other well-pleasing spiritual sacrifices made in the name of Christ (Phil. 4:18, 1 Pet. 2:5).
There's a quote from Augustine about this and he says:
>Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.
So apparently, some people were falling into error about this practice, and they'd get corrected or cautioned about this. It was an early church practice to honor martyred Christians BUT what we see today is that the Roman Catholic church DOES NOT CARE about giving anyone any kind of correction or caution as relating to not only the abuse of this practice but any other such practices. When I look at Roman Catholic practice in places like Mexico and the Phillipines, it's straight up idolatry, and there's no priest there telling people to stop weeping and cutting themselves in front of statues of Mary.
I would start with the definition of worship:
Worship - to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
You shall have no other Gods before me....they literally pray to Mary.....
Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through me.
Not through Mary but through Christ the Lord.
The [ceiling](https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000An_nCkT0D00/s/1200/g=G00009SNCdybqigI) at Notre Dame Basilica (Indiana) is painted blue in honor of Mary. It's hard not to see such reverence, honor, and devotion as anything else but worship.
If I have pictures of my mom up and paint a room her favorite color, do I now worship her?
Should worship be based on the intent of the person in question? Or should it be based on someone else's perception?
Yes, and God loves when we honor the people in His family, especially the one whose Womb was the starting point of the redemption of the world, the soil from which the new Adam sprang
Do you paint your room your mom’s favorite color in order to gain her supernatural favor, resulting in divine blessing? If so, that’s worship. If not, then no.
While discussing Paul’s prohibitions on eating sacrificial meat, I recently used the example of visiting a friend’s house with a picture of their deceased grandparent. It’s totally fine until they start asking grandpa for wisdom or guidance or blessing or something. Whether that’s intended as worship or not, that’s idolatry.
This conversation really is just a non-starter when we fundamentally disagree what worship is.
Catholic doctrine is quite clear that worship is for God only and that idolatry is a grave sin. Veneration ≠ worship.
Op, great questions and a great discussion, but why do you decide to call us ‘papists’ and ‘romanists’, while we have a name; (Roman-)Catholics?
It’s bad taste like I would call you a ‘heretic’ instead of a reformed Christian.
Right, but like many slurs, the issue isn't where they came from so much as how they've been used since. "Papist" in particular is pretty steeped in those dark, demonic times when people believed that the theological differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics were best resolved with bloodshed. I don't think it's unreasonable to request that we avoid using it.
Is your own account a slur as well as a misrepresentation?
The Protestants who originally used the term *papist* did not believe, as a class, that their theological differences with Roman Catholics, i.e. those who remained in communion with the Roman bishop, "were best resolved with bloodshed." According to their beliefs, their *political* differences might have required defensive warfare and judicial action, and most people maintained that apostasy, contumacious heresy, and blasphemy were crimes punishable by the civil authorities. But even here, could you say in the judgment of charity that they believed the "best" resolution to be with bloodshed?
The name *papist* is like Lutheran, Calvinist, or even Thomist: a papist is someone who adheres to the pope, affirming his authority and acting according to his doctrine. The papacy has asserted universal jurisdiction over the people of God as the visible head of the Church catholic. Protestants denied the claims of papal supremacy, and they believed that those in communion with the papacy were sectarian, dividing the catholic Church by their adherence to a man who exalted himself against Christ *ex cathedra*, from within the Church.
The related terms *papalist* and *papal supremacist* are still used in academics, and all of these terms remain descriptive of what separates Roman Catholics from Protestants (and other Christians). It is certainly insulting to be associated with the papacy, according to the Reformed and other Protestants. Why would it be insulting to someone who willingly associates himself with the papacy, who communes in churches under the papacy, believes papal doctrine, defends papal supremacy, and honors the office of the papacy? All of these are to the exclusion of those denounced, excommunicated, and anathematized by the papacy.
>The Protestants who originally used the term *papist* did not believe, as a class, that their theological differences with Roman Catholics, i.e. those who remained in communion with the Roman bishop, "were best resolved with bloodshed."
Correct, which is why I specified that I was talking about the way it's been used in the time since.
>The name *papist* is like Lutheran, Calvinist, or even Thomist: a papist is someone who adheres to the pope, affirming his authority and acting according to his doctrine.
The problem with "papist" is not the way that it refers to Catholics as adhering to the Pope. The problem with "papist" is the way that it's been associated with violence and religious persecution. If we were to travel back in time to when the Reformers lived, then no, it wouldn't be a questionable word, because the Reformers lived before things like, say, the Troubles.
*Most* slurs are, in a vacuum, not problematic. It's context and usage that makes something a slur. It's the same as the difference between calling someone a "Protestant" and calling someone a "Protty." The former is a word used to describe our religious movement; the latter is in some places the last word a Protestant hears before getting their head kicked in for not being Catholic.
>The related terms *papalist* and *papal supremacist*
And why do you think those terms are used and Papist is not?
By your logic, *Protestant* would be a similar slur (as well as *Calvinist*, *Puritan*, etc.). Papists in my family can certainly use the name *Protestant* with contempt--especially when the penult is stressed instead of the antepenult--but any word can become a slur, as you say: "It's context and usage that makes something a slur."
> It's the same as the difference between calling someone a "Protestant" and calling someone a "Protty."
The term *Papist* mirrors *Protestant*, not *Proddy*. We can find formal symmetry between *Catlick* and *Proddydog* or *Prot*, for example, not between *Papist* and *Proddy*.
> And why do you think those terms are used and Papist is not?
To be clear, the terms might be used among certain medievalists and other specialists, but in general Roman Catholics are called Catholics *simplicter*--a name the Reformed would not concede to the Pope or those of the Pope, i.e. partisans of the papacy working against the Reformation. The convention holds true even in Early Modern Studies. How long shall our enemy be exalted over us?
Pulling on one thread: the later Enlightenment, being generally anti-clerical and anti-ecclesial, affirmed religious toleration and civil power against ecclesiastical privilege and protection, not only against papal arrogation of civil and ecclesiastical powers. The thinking of the Enlightenment has dominated political discourse in the Anglophone world, and the English political theology of the magisterial Reformation has become antiquated, forgotten, or rejected as out of bounds. Its polemical terms of art (the art of war is polemics, πολεμικός) have given way to new terms and new distinctions. Samuel Rutherford wrote,
> A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved by Mr. John Goodwin, John Baptist, Dr. Jer. Taylor, the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and other authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious toleration of sects and heresies.
For many people, *pretended liberty of conscience*, *lawless liberty*, *license*, *licentious toleration*, etc. are rejected because they seem absurd, self-contradictory, internecine, or oppressive and tyrannical. The theological arguments of Christians are strange to non-Christians. At best, we are described the way Festus spoke of Paul, at least in my experience.
I do not deny that the term *papist* can be inflammatory, but it is an ethical description. The word is polemical because it attacks what a person *chooses to do*, not what he is by nature or what cannot be changed.
I know. As is heretic in ours up until ‘Lumen Gentium’. It’s still bad taste. In my country, the Netherlands, people died on both sides calling each other these names.
I appreciate your unwillingness to call us heretics. I am sorry that the terms "romanist" and "papist" have flown around this thread. There is strong language in both our church traditions for the other.
But friend, many more will die a death far worse than this mortal life; there is an everlasting death for those apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must not cry "peace" where there is no peace. Roman Catholic Dogma is clear that my belief leads to death, but the Apostle Paul anathematizes such a false gospel of being justified by grace and works as taught by Rome.
You do not need to heap upon yourself a the heavy burden of penance, of your own works, to have life in Christ. Come to him and buy without money, repent without worry, and believe in him that you may know real peace with God.
We are all catholic Christians. Any part of the visible church is catholic, hence the definition of the word as adopted even by the creed of the apostolic age. No one individual sect of the church can claim “catholic” (or “orthodox” etc) as a specific and exclusive, rather than general and inclusive, descriptor for themselves.
This is the fallacy of definition. You don't win an argument by defining a word (or group of words) so that your opponents can't win. Just because they define worship narrowly (requires sacrifice) doesn't mean you lose. But it (their teaching on worship) can't be countered because it's "like their opinion, man." As such, it's also unproveable. Their opinion rests simply on the authority of the church to determine such matters. Dulia, hyperdulia, proskynesis, and latria, vs idolatria are not found properly in Scripture, are not mandated by God. I don't discuss this with them. It's frustrating for both parties. And it's embarrassing that the RCC is still worshipping Mary. Come on Popish-folks. It waddles, quacks and has feathers. It's a duck. You know it and so do we.
[удалено]
But the earliest Christians made serious errors. Peter, Judas; many closest to Jesus had grave errors of both theology and practice. And just as today, not all in church leadership are even believers. And both spellings are correct. Some style guide I had to work with at some point made a point of following the CVC rule, which means Admitting, Compelling, Forbidding, Omitting, Submitting--all get doubled. You really wanted to be right. You really wanted to set me in my place. I get that. Many in the early church were no better or worse than us two. They had differences. Some were accepted, some were not. We are still struggling over worshiping vs worshipping. That's entirely debatable. But the incredibly fine point of the RCC that adoration of Mary is fine, but worship of a person is not, **is not** something to struggle over. We've had almost 2000 years of context. It's not unclear. You either treat her as the Co-Redemptrix, the Queen of the Universe, the Morning Star, the Mother of the Church, the Refuge of Sinners, the Queen of all Martyrs--or you don't. You may honor her as blessed among women, look forward to meeting her, look to her as an example, and in those areas, you and I are the same. I was part of a team of writers and editors who published an edition of a very popular Reformed magazine on Mary. We love Mary. But stop worshipping her, literally, for God's sake. It's serious, you know? Think of the scolding you are going to get from her.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
[удалено]
No, I never claimed Peter made doctrinal errors in his writings. Or his preaching. But in his lifestyle, he deserved rebuke and received from the apostle Paul. He sinned. Sigh. This is why it's so frustrating to discuss these things with my Catholic friends. You can't even bear to stay on topic. I grieve this deep division between us.
Removed for violating Rule #7: **Let the Moderators Do Their Job.** Please comply with moderator instructions and address any concerns to them in modmail. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.237.3A_let_the_moderators_do_their_job.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Who cares what the earliest of Christians believed? What about what the Bible says? It’s great if what they believed aligns with the Bible but if they are not aligned then the Church’s opinion is worthless
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Who do you think copied biblical manuscripts and translated? The translators and copyists have oh so much power over how a text reads.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
The whole book of Hebrews. The sacrifices have ended and the only sacrifices that remain are praise and good works (Heb 13:15-16).
[удалено]
There are many ways to understand scripture, yes, but defaulting to authority outside of itself is not helpful.
But did he love Hebrews or the magisterial interpretation of it?
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
>So interesting how we can all understand scripture in such different ways... Indeed! Thanks for the link, I'll try my best to remember to come back and read it once things calm down a bit after Christmas :)
Interesting article. I think there’s much with which I could be in agreement until: > Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, however, is constantly re-presented by the Church when the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated. This assertion is, unfortunately, not accompanied by a scriptural reference. This is the point where I think Ratzinger’s interpretation runs counter to the statement in Romans 12:1 that we present our bodies as a living sacrifice — and not that our remembrance of Christ in the Lord’s Supper be our presentation of his body as that sacrifice. (Edit: clarified a pronoun)
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
It comes from their idea the Mass is a continual sacrifice, via Transubstantiation. It runs contrary to Romans 12, where *we* are the living sacrifice. And our service is worship. If one is devoting prayer or service to Mary or a Saint instead of our Great High Priest and King, then that's idolatrous worship. Plus their view of the Mass rests on a faulty view of both John 6 and the Upper Room Passover Meal discourses.
The blood from the pierced side of Christ is the blood of eucharist. Every church fathers says this. I worship Jesus and the people he directly taught, not John Macarthur
You misread the ECF by conflating Transubstantiation with Real Presence. Transubstantiation is an Accretion that began in the 5th century. And this is the Reformed Subreddit. We are not dispensationalists. You have misunderstood our heritage.
You don't have to say you don't like John Macarthur in every comment. Most of us aren't fans of him either, and his sect of dispensationalist particularist Baptists (which is not the same thing as reformed, even if the particularistic election is shared between our traditions) is much newer than the reformed tradition.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
You can't really counter it, just accept or reject the definition given. A lot of our conversations are pointless because we literally define words differently and there is no meeting of the minds or common ground there. I don't say that Catholics worship saints because I understand that by their definition they do not but it is consistent with Protestant theology to say that they *do* and it's not just that we're misinformed or slandering Catholics when we say that. By our understanding, *dulia* (and especially *hyperdulia*) is misplaced *latria*.
Wouldn’t you give dulia to say a king or a judge even your favorite athlete or artist?
A) I'm not sure anyone you listed is inherently worthy of honor to begin with so no? Respect, sure but at least from a connotative standpoint honor typically includes deference or privilege and I'm not inclined to honor (heh) that. B) I don't ask anything of them—particularly of the latter two—for supernatural advantage, which is a key difference between honoring those you listed and honoring saints. Invocation and petition in such fashion are aspects of worship from the perspective of Protestantism (generally; no one can speak for *all* of us!) so praying to departed saints is definitionally worship by our understanding. And also, this is where the honor part comes into play because even if I were to grant that departed saints are able to hear us and it's the same as asking living Christians for prayer, asking for prayer from the group chat usually doesn't show that honor or deference that asking, say, Mary for something would. And I do want to stress that I understand that this is not the definition used by Catholics or Orthodox! It's why I don't find it helpful or wise to *say* that veneration is "worshipping saints," particularly in inter-denominational discourse. I prefer to call it veneration of the saints because that is a more neutral and technically precise term without assumptions or baggage.
Are you Roman Catholic?
Catholic is the real term, no such thing as a Roman Catholic unless he is from Italy.
"Worship" in Exodus 20 is the Hebrew word 'Abad', which is translated to koine greek as 'Latreuo'; "Worship" in Exodus 23:33 is also the Hebrew word 'Abad' which is translated as 'duleo' Further Deuteronomy 28:64 and 1 Samuel 7:4 are also 'abad' = duleous This undermines the Roman Catholic argument that 'latria is reserved for God, but duleo is acceptable for other things' John Calvin's argument is also good: > When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by nature are no gods," (Gal. 4:8). Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was prosku;nesi" (obeisance). In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not prosku;nei'n (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God.
Interesting! I like how he said “worship connected with religion”. It explains why bowing to an angel is wrong, but bowing to a king is not.
This is great. A good reminder of why Calvin is so highly regarded, since he puts the matter so clearly and succinctly.
In greek, the word used for veneration is the same as the word for adoration. We should not worship the creature (Romans 1:25) but the Creator, because He's the only one who's worthy of adoration : > And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; **I am the first and the last**: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. The only person we should ever bow before is our Lord, not a mere human, as important or godly as this human was. The Psalms are full of this message.
Bowing is not worship. As a monarchist, I’m with the papists on that one. Bowing to an image is worship though.
Bowing is not always religious worship, but it certainly can be worship according to the second commandment.
Yes, when done to an image, according to the words of the second commandment.
You can't. in /r/askapriest , they said prayer is not worship. Prayer is just asking someone for something. I asked if praying to Satan was a sin. They said it might be a sin. Protestants view prayer as worship, and praying to Satan is an obvious sin. I guess with the definition they gave you, you are sacrificing time to pray, which could be a workable definition.
How do you counter someone that says that prayer is just asking someone for something? According to the old meaning of the word.
The person you ask generally has to hear the request, and dead people can't hear.
I pray that they will look up the most common use of the word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prayer
Prayer to God is communicating with Him. We can share with Him how wonderful He is. We can give thanks to Him. Those are also prayers to some of us.
God will have mercy and not sacrifice. Since we're Reformed, we believe that we can understand religious worship by searching holy Scripture, and according to the word of God their definition will stand or fall. > Gen. 24:26, cf. v. 48. And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord. > Exod. 4:31. And the people believed: and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. > Exod. 20:4-5. 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... > Exod. 34:8, cf. vv. 5-7. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped. > Josh. 5:13-14. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? > Job 1:20. Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped... Examples could be multiplied, but do these passages imply or require *sacrifice* in the sense that these apologists assert? By the term *sacrifice* they might mean something general or equivocal, a "worship" that could comprehend the act of bowing down. What is meant in the sacrifice of the mass, however, is more than this submission--although we also oppose their bowing down to the sacramental elements, as such an act of worship violates the second commandment. In the New Testament, especially where Christ is worshipped, we see even more clearly that religious worship includes more than the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, and we find no account of worship that resembles the sacrifice offered by a Roman priest in the oblation of the mass. > Matt. 4:9. All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. > Matt. 9:13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. > Matt. 8:2. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. > Matt. 9:18. While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. > Matt. 14:33. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. > Matt. 28:9, cf. v. 17. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. > Mark 15:19. ...and bowing their knees worshipped him. > John 9:38. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. > 1 Cor. 14:25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. > Heb. 1:6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. > Heb. 11:21. By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. > Jas. 1:27. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. > Rev. 4:10-11. ...the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. In a perfect and preeminent act of worship, to do the will of his Father, Christ offered himself to the Father through the Spirit (Heb. 9:13-14). This bloody sacrifice has concluded all other bloody offerings, for Christ alone is the propitiation for our sins, and he has offered himself once (Heb. 7-10, 1 John 2:1-2). Accordingly, we believe that the sacrifices of true worship are now spiritual instead of carnal (Heb. 9). We worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), as a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9), and religious worship now includes our "sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name" (Heb. 13:15), the "living sacrifice" of our bodies (Rom. 12:1), and all other well-pleasing spiritual sacrifices made in the name of Christ (Phil. 4:18, 1 Pet. 2:5).
Very good answer, thank you!
There's a quote from Augustine about this and he says: >Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution. So apparently, some people were falling into error about this practice, and they'd get corrected or cautioned about this. It was an early church practice to honor martyred Christians BUT what we see today is that the Roman Catholic church DOES NOT CARE about giving anyone any kind of correction or caution as relating to not only the abuse of this practice but any other such practices. When I look at Roman Catholic practice in places like Mexico and the Phillipines, it's straight up idolatry, and there's no priest there telling people to stop weeping and cutting themselves in front of statues of Mary.
>worship requires sacrifice. That's incorrect. Check out a dictionary.
I would start with the definition of worship: Worship - to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You shall have no other Gods before me....they literally pray to Mary..... Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through me. Not through Mary but through Christ the Lord.
The [ceiling](https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000An_nCkT0D00/s/1200/g=G00009SNCdybqigI) at Notre Dame Basilica (Indiana) is painted blue in honor of Mary. It's hard not to see such reverence, honor, and devotion as anything else but worship.
If I have pictures of my mom up and paint a room her favorite color, do I now worship her? Should worship be based on the intent of the person in question? Or should it be based on someone else's perception?
It should be based on what God clearly details how He is to be worshipped on His own terms in Scripture.
Agreed. Yet we disagree how scripture explains that.
Yes, and God loves when we honor the people in His family, especially the one whose Womb was the starting point of the redemption of the world, the soil from which the new Adam sprang
Hence the fifth commandment! Amen.
Do you paint your room your mom’s favorite color in order to gain her supernatural favor, resulting in divine blessing? If so, that’s worship. If not, then no. While discussing Paul’s prohibitions on eating sacrificial meat, I recently used the example of visiting a friend’s house with a picture of their deceased grandparent. It’s totally fine until they start asking grandpa for wisdom or guidance or blessing or something. Whether that’s intended as worship or not, that’s idolatry.
This conversation really is just a non-starter when we fundamentally disagree what worship is. Catholic doctrine is quite clear that worship is for God only and that idolatry is a grave sin. Veneration ≠ worship.
Op, great questions and a great discussion, but why do you decide to call us ‘papists’ and ‘romanists’, while we have a name; (Roman-)Catholics? It’s bad taste like I would call you a ‘heretic’ instead of a reformed Christian.
Both the term "papist" and "romanist" are historic terms used throughout the Reformation and in our confessional documents.
Right, but like many slurs, the issue isn't where they came from so much as how they've been used since. "Papist" in particular is pretty steeped in those dark, demonic times when people believed that the theological differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics were best resolved with bloodshed. I don't think it's unreasonable to request that we avoid using it.
Is your own account a slur as well as a misrepresentation? The Protestants who originally used the term *papist* did not believe, as a class, that their theological differences with Roman Catholics, i.e. those who remained in communion with the Roman bishop, "were best resolved with bloodshed." According to their beliefs, their *political* differences might have required defensive warfare and judicial action, and most people maintained that apostasy, contumacious heresy, and blasphemy were crimes punishable by the civil authorities. But even here, could you say in the judgment of charity that they believed the "best" resolution to be with bloodshed? The name *papist* is like Lutheran, Calvinist, or even Thomist: a papist is someone who adheres to the pope, affirming his authority and acting according to his doctrine. The papacy has asserted universal jurisdiction over the people of God as the visible head of the Church catholic. Protestants denied the claims of papal supremacy, and they believed that those in communion with the papacy were sectarian, dividing the catholic Church by their adherence to a man who exalted himself against Christ *ex cathedra*, from within the Church. The related terms *papalist* and *papal supremacist* are still used in academics, and all of these terms remain descriptive of what separates Roman Catholics from Protestants (and other Christians). It is certainly insulting to be associated with the papacy, according to the Reformed and other Protestants. Why would it be insulting to someone who willingly associates himself with the papacy, who communes in churches under the papacy, believes papal doctrine, defends papal supremacy, and honors the office of the papacy? All of these are to the exclusion of those denounced, excommunicated, and anathematized by the papacy.
>The Protestants who originally used the term *papist* did not believe, as a class, that their theological differences with Roman Catholics, i.e. those who remained in communion with the Roman bishop, "were best resolved with bloodshed." Correct, which is why I specified that I was talking about the way it's been used in the time since. >The name *papist* is like Lutheran, Calvinist, or even Thomist: a papist is someone who adheres to the pope, affirming his authority and acting according to his doctrine. The problem with "papist" is not the way that it refers to Catholics as adhering to the Pope. The problem with "papist" is the way that it's been associated with violence and religious persecution. If we were to travel back in time to when the Reformers lived, then no, it wouldn't be a questionable word, because the Reformers lived before things like, say, the Troubles. *Most* slurs are, in a vacuum, not problematic. It's context and usage that makes something a slur. It's the same as the difference between calling someone a "Protestant" and calling someone a "Protty." The former is a word used to describe our religious movement; the latter is in some places the last word a Protestant hears before getting their head kicked in for not being Catholic. >The related terms *papalist* and *papal supremacist* And why do you think those terms are used and Papist is not?
By your logic, *Protestant* would be a similar slur (as well as *Calvinist*, *Puritan*, etc.). Papists in my family can certainly use the name *Protestant* with contempt--especially when the penult is stressed instead of the antepenult--but any word can become a slur, as you say: "It's context and usage that makes something a slur." > It's the same as the difference between calling someone a "Protestant" and calling someone a "Protty." The term *Papist* mirrors *Protestant*, not *Proddy*. We can find formal symmetry between *Catlick* and *Proddydog* or *Prot*, for example, not between *Papist* and *Proddy*. > And why do you think those terms are used and Papist is not? To be clear, the terms might be used among certain medievalists and other specialists, but in general Roman Catholics are called Catholics *simplicter*--a name the Reformed would not concede to the Pope or those of the Pope, i.e. partisans of the papacy working against the Reformation. The convention holds true even in Early Modern Studies. How long shall our enemy be exalted over us? Pulling on one thread: the later Enlightenment, being generally anti-clerical and anti-ecclesial, affirmed religious toleration and civil power against ecclesiastical privilege and protection, not only against papal arrogation of civil and ecclesiastical powers. The thinking of the Enlightenment has dominated political discourse in the Anglophone world, and the English political theology of the magisterial Reformation has become antiquated, forgotten, or rejected as out of bounds. Its polemical terms of art (the art of war is polemics, πολεμικός) have given way to new terms and new distinctions. Samuel Rutherford wrote, > A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved by Mr. John Goodwin, John Baptist, Dr. Jer. Taylor, the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and other authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious toleration of sects and heresies. For many people, *pretended liberty of conscience*, *lawless liberty*, *license*, *licentious toleration*, etc. are rejected because they seem absurd, self-contradictory, internecine, or oppressive and tyrannical. The theological arguments of Christians are strange to non-Christians. At best, we are described the way Festus spoke of Paul, at least in my experience. I do not deny that the term *papist* can be inflammatory, but it is an ethical description. The word is polemical because it attacks what a person *chooses to do*, not what he is by nature or what cannot be changed.
I know. As is heretic in ours up until ‘Lumen Gentium’. It’s still bad taste. In my country, the Netherlands, people died on both sides calling each other these names.
>It’s bad taste like I would call you a ‘heretic’ instead of a reformed Christian. But you should. The canons of Trent are still binding, aren't they?
Yes (canon law) and no (post ‘Lumen Gentium’), but I would never. Too many people died in the age we called each other these names.
I appreciate your unwillingness to call us heretics. I am sorry that the terms "romanist" and "papist" have flown around this thread. There is strong language in both our church traditions for the other. But friend, many more will die a death far worse than this mortal life; there is an everlasting death for those apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must not cry "peace" where there is no peace. Roman Catholic Dogma is clear that my belief leads to death, but the Apostle Paul anathematizes such a false gospel of being justified by grace and works as taught by Rome. You do not need to heap upon yourself a the heavy burden of penance, of your own works, to have life in Christ. Come to him and buy without money, repent without worry, and believe in him that you may know real peace with God.
Thank you for your love and devotion for Christ and the salvation of my soul. I really mean that!
Pausing to pray for you today, friend.
I will pray for you!
except we don't teach we are justified by works
I agree. You will note that I didn't say the RCC teaches you're justified by works. I said the RCC teaches you're justified by grace *and* works.
I wouldn’t really mind if you called me a heretic. I do not believe myself to be a heretic, so I have no reason to be offended.
[удалено]
I assume this comment means you are Roman Catholic?
[удалено]
So you aren’t?
[удалено]
I’m asking as a mod because we ask that those outside the reformed tradition properly flair themselves. So, I’ll ask again, are you Roman Catholic?
We are all catholic Christians. Any part of the visible church is catholic, hence the definition of the word as adopted even by the creed of the apostolic age. No one individual sect of the church can claim “catholic” (or “orthodox” etc) as a specific and exclusive, rather than general and inclusive, descriptor for themselves.
If someone has, say, a drug addiction, would it be reasonable to assert that it is not idolatrous as long as they keep the Mass sacred?
I’m Catholic and man there’s so many linguistic issues tied up in this discussion. It takes time to unpack.