December 13, 2008

• Question 116 – Albrecht and White

  Question 116 – Albrecht and White

   

  Robert, I listened to your post on James White's interview with William Albrecht regarding giving hyperdulia to Mary. White asked Albrecht to prove from Scripture that douleuo could be used as a term for non-worship in a religious context. Albrecht could not provide any examples but I emailed White and gave him two. He blew my verses off as irrelevant which shows that this man is obstinate in his anti-Catholicism. I don't know Mr. Albrecht, but you may want to pass this dialogue onto him, for his information. I terminated this dialogue after getting nowhere, and after White accused me of idolatry.

   

  J. Salza: Dear Dr. White:

   

  I heard your interview with William Albrecht on the Dividing Line. In your interview, you asked Mr. Albrecht whether the Scriptures made any distinction between douleuo as worship and douleuo as non-worship but in a religious context. Mr. Albrecht provided you Acts 7:7 (which says, "the nation which they shall serve will I judge...") and you correctly pointed out that douleuo in this verse is not used in a religious context. However, there are two verses in which douleuo is used in a religious context but not in reference to worship. First, in Rom 7:25, Paul says, "I...serve (douleuo) the law of God.." Second, in Phil 2:22, Paul says that Timothy "served (douleuo) with me in the gospel." Clearly, in these two cases, douleuo is being used in a religious context (relative to the Gospel), but not in the context of worship. Hence, Catholics have a biblical basis to distinguish the religious douleuo they give to Mary, and the religious douleuo they give to God.

   

  J.White: You are not serious, are you? How could either text be even *remotely* relevant to the issue at hand? This must be a not-so-good attempt at humor? james

   

  J.Salza: James, I am responding to the question you posed to Mr. Albrecht. I don't know what is humorous about it. You asked Mr. Albrecht where in Scripture douleuo was used in a religious context that was not a reference to worship. I have provided you two examples. Catholics maintain that they give dulia to Mary which is in service of the gospel, but which is not worship. Romans 7:25 and Philippians 2:22 support that distinction. You asked the question. I responded. It is unfortunate that you would blow my response off as humorous. It is not; it is responsive.

   

  J.White: Sir, I seriously wondered if it was a joke because it is so *obviously* unrelated to reality that I feared maybe it was meant to be taken sarcastically.  There is, of course, nothing in either text even *remotely* relevant to the definition of religious worship or veneration; both texts do not even relate to the topic, but instead speak of "serving" the law of God or of sin, and "serving" in the gospel ministry.  I'm sorry, but to even suggest these texts are relevant smacks of utter desperation.  Amazing, truly amazing!

   

  J.Salza: No, James, what is amazing is that you asked for an example where douleuo was used in Scripture in a religious context but not in reference to worship, I provided you two examples, and then you say that the texts are not relevant. Presumably, that is because these texts refute your claim that douleuo in a religious context always refers to worship, when it does not. Why can't you simply acknowledge this? I am not using these texts to support veneration of saints or intercessory prayer. I am using them to demonstrate that your limited understanding of douleuo (worship only when used in a religious context) is incorrect. Thus, when Catholics say they give douleuo to the saints, this does not mean that they worship the saints, because douleuo doesn't always mean worship (even though you claim, contrary to the teaching of Scripture, that it does).

   

  J.White: Well, sir, I leave you to your self-deception, for surely, that is  what you are experiencing.  An amazing display of "find something, anything, to assuage my conscience in light of my idolatry."  Amazing  indeed.

   

  END

   

  R. Sungenis: John, thanks so much for sending this to us. Despite the fact that White accused you of being desperate, it appears that his sarcastic and dismissive response is typical of an act of desperation. Time and time again we have seen that, for James White, it's not about truth, it's about continuing the smearing of the Catholic Church. For him to admit that there is a distinction between dulia and latria in Greek or in Latin would put question marks around his whole ministry, since he has been so vociferous lately of accusing Catholics of worshiping Mary and idolatry. As I've said before, however, the James Whites of the world do us a favor, for William would not have done the exhaustive study on dulia and latria that he just accomplished had it not been for White's accusations. God be with you, John, and thanks for your dedication to the Faith.

  • 6:13 pm
  • 1 Comment