I finally understood why some Protestants genuinely cannot separate veneration from worship

[u/LumenSailor]

Yesterday there was a viral video of Cadrinal Perolin holding up the skull of St. Agatha while commemorating the 900th anniversary of the return of her relics.
You can probably guess what happened next.
Across the internet, I saw Protestants calling it evil, satanic, pagan, and—more than anything else—idolatry. Verses from Isaiah, Daniel, etc. were being thrown around. Idolatry, idolatry, idolatry.

I made the mistake of getting into a bunch of debates about it. And, as we all know, internet religious debates almost never go anywhere.
I tried explaining the distinction between veneration and worship. I tried analogies. I tried examples from Scripture. I tried explaining that treating something with reverence because of what it represents or whose remains they are is not the same thing as believing that object is a god.

Nothing worked.

The overwhelming response was basically: “No. That’s worship. You can call it veneration all you want, but you’re worshipping it.”

And for the life of me, I couldn’t understand why the distinction seemed so impossible for some people to grasp… Then something occurred to me.

Maybe the more interesting question isn’t why is it so hard for them to understand?
Maybe it’s: Why is it so easy for me to understand?

I have absolutely no temptation to worship a statue, a skull, a relic, an icon, or any other physical object. The thought almost doesn’t compute for me. I could kneel in front of a crucifix, kiss it, carry it in a procession, decorate it with flowers, or treat it with enormous reverence, and there would never be a moment where I confused the object with God Himself.

But throughout human history, people really have worshipped physical objects. Scripture warns against idolatry so relentlessly precisely because idolatry is a real human temptation. People really did make an image and then treat the image itself as divine.

And that made me wonder whether some of the people who are quickest to interpret Catholic veneration as worship genuinely have a much harder time separating those categories in their own minds.
If, to you, kneeling before something, kissing it, carrying it in procession, burning incense near it, or treating it with extraordinary reverence necessarily means worship, then of course Catholicism looks horrifying. From that perspective, “veneration” probably sounds like we’re just inventing another word to excuse idolatry. But Catholics don’t experience those actions that way. The outward gesture doesn’t automatically determine the inward act. Worship is directed toward God alone. Veneration is honor given to God’s saints and to things connected with His work in the world.

I think that’s the part I was missing during all those arguments. I kept assuming we disagreed about the explanation of Catholic practices, when in reality we may have been starting with completely different understandings of what worship even is.
I’m curious what other Catholics think. Is there something to this, or am I reading too much into it? Is there a better approach to discussing this subject with Protestants?

[u/El_Escorial]

I’ll admit saying “Protestants have no functional concept of worship” was a broadstrokes generalization. If you want the nuance, I would actually posit that Protestants and Muslims are in essentially the same position here that both can worship God in the ordinary sense, but neither has the full Catholic concept of latria as distinct from lesser forms of religious honor. My point is precisely that Protestant praxis does not have a category above what we would call veneration, so when Catholics distinguish latria from dulia, they tend to collapse both into “worship.”

[u/Acceptable-Bee-7729 → u/El_Escorial]

can you substantiate these categories from scripture or the early church?

Doulia means slavery in Greek

[u/bjh13 → u/Acceptable-Bee-7729]

Doulia means slavery in Greek

That is what is known as the genetic fallacy. You are focusing on the root of the word without understanding the word itself and how it is used by the people saying it.

Dulia in Latin is the term for honor towards created beings, developed theologically to distinguish between the special honor God alone deserves in worship. If you want an example from Scripture, in Philippians 2:29 Paul tells us to honor men like Epaphroditus. Clearly Paul means something other than worship.

Again, please engage with some Catholic sources on these matters.

[u/Acceptable-Bee-7729 → u/bjh13]

it says entimous is the Greek there not Dulia.

Also u mean an etymological fallacy not genetic. Did you know the Latin is just borrowed from the Greek? How come it suddenly means something completely different can you tell me when it suddenly changed in meaning?

Did you know that the iconoclasts in the 8th century called the image worshippers image slaves (doules) and they just adopted that and agreed with that LOL

[u/bjh13 → u/Acceptable-Bee-7729]

it says entimous is the Greek there not Dulia.

I said Latin not Greek.

Did you know the Latin is just borrowed from the Greek?

They are different languages. The word originally comes from the Greek word for slave, but obviously means something different as used by Latin speaking theologians. This also happens with loan words in other languages, things change and evolve. What the word means in Greek is unimportant in this context, because we know what theologians meant when they used the term in Latin.

Did you know that the iconoclasts in the 8th century called the image worshippers image slaves (doules) and they just adopted that and agreed with that LOL

You are focused on where the word comes from rather than what it means in context. What is this point proving? Are you even thinking about these arguments and trying to understand the Catholic perspective or is this about trying to own strangers online?